+1 from me, too

Very well said, Bess.


On 12/18/12 7:54 PM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
> +1 #everything that bess said
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Bess Sadler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I am not aware of any recent egregious issues and I don't think code4lib
>> is a hotbed of misogynist behavior, certainly not compared to more
>> mainstream tech conferences or something notorious like DefCon. Having a
>> policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and
>> which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any
>> individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for
>> harassment. It protects conference organizers legally, it gives us an
>> agreed upon way to respond if incidents do arise, and having such a policy
>> is a proven way to make conferences more welcoming to women and gender
>> minorities.
>> I am not comfortable discussing my individual experience in public more
>> than I already have. I have acted as a lightning rod for these kinds of
>> discussions in the past and I am not interested in playing that role again.
>> I am not comfortable discussing specific incidents that have been related
>> to me in confidence, and I am REALLY not interested in rehashing more
>> public incidents, I think that would be a train wreck. As for what has
>> happened that we're trying to address: Sometimes people make thougtless
>> jokes. Sometimes people say alienating things without meaning to. Sometimes
>> people do things they might later wish they hadn't done, because they were
>> drunk, or having a good time, or never knew a certain word carried a
>> certain connotation for some people. These things are not really
>> news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing
>> how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss
>> questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and
>> how to make library technology more inclusive in general.
>> Bess
>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Michele R Combs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO.  Then the list can
>> get back to code :)
>>> It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is
>> comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or
>> SAA function or, heck, your basic office party).  In that case, I submit
>> that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same
>> approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life.
>>> Michele
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
>> Jonathan Rochkind [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
>>> ...Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If
>>> it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can
>>> easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT
>>> calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is
>>> that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)...

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet