 |
 |
+1 from me, too Very well said, Bess. kc 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] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet