 |
 |
> --And how did we get from "The code of conduct is sufficient so let's not overthink things!" to "Wait, we need to implement procedures to vote on the code of conduct!" anyway?? > We got there because you replied that there was an ongoing debate about whether the policy was sufficient enough to deal with any discomfort folks might have about zoia. I still think the policy is sufficient, as it's meant to be used when dealing with incidents in context, not in the abstract. To date, no one has spoken up about an incident where they were harassed by zoia. Unless there's something I missed, it has all been speculation that someone might be harassed in the future. According to the anti-harassment policy, if you read it, no action should be taken. To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used in the policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing opinions can make people uncomfortable. Since I am not going to stop sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I be banned? It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy. If you want to see something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and change it. :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shaun Ellis > Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia) > >> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from >> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even >> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context, >> rather than in the abstract? >> > > I share your unease. But deciding to situations in context without a set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle it. > > I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of behavior it is meant to prevent. > > I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues and resolve them before we vote. Whatever issues can't get resolved end up in a branch/fork. In the end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy at all". > > Does that sound reasonable? > > -- > Shaun Ellis > User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library > > > ________________________________ > P Please consider the environment before you print this email. > "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, > distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender > by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all attachments from your system." > -- Shaun Ellis User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library