 |
 |
As I recall, the community discussion surrounding the CodeOfConduct4Lib intended to make its application broader than in-person events such as the conferences. Since Coral described Geek Feminism as an anarchist collective (sounding very similar to Code4Lib in that respect), I went to read their Code of Conduct with an eye towards how they apply sanctions to a community without boundaries of who can participate. After all, it is one thing to have the power to expel someone from a physical meeting venue; it is quite another to try to expel someone from a virtual space with self-selected aliases and e-mail addresses. The GF sanctions part reads: > Consequences > > Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. > > If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including expulsion from all Geek Feminism spaces and identification of the participant as a harasser to other GF members or the general public. I think that is probably the best we could do in Code4Lib spaces as well. What I do like about the GF statement is the inclusion of a “Anti-Abuse Team” with rotating representatives. We have the designated conference representatives and the @helpers on the IRC channel, but having a team that crosses all spaces would help provide strength in cohesiveness. I presume there is also a manual of practices that the team follows to investigate reports. (If there is, I’d like to adopt and adapt that, too.) Peter On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:33 PM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > In particular, we'd need to think about how to shape the sanctions section, > including things like: > > - What's an appropriate sanction in non-conference setting X? > - Who is empowered to enact sanctions? > - If a participant feels they have been harassed, who do they contact > and how? > - possibly other stuff? > > I think the conflict resolution part is in better shape, though it would > need a little cleanup for more universal (i.e., not conference-specific) > language. > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> My cursory web search came up with the one that was developed for the most >> recent conference, but it's not clear to me what the breadth of the >> document is supposed to include. I think it was applied to the IRC channel >> during the conference, but if it was written specifically as a conference >> policy, it's probably worth revisiting to ensure that it covers everything >> needed community-wide outside of conference time as well. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask] >>> wrote: >> >>> I was under the impression that we had a code of conduct/anti-harassment >>> policy in place for IRC and the mailing lists. Was this an incorrect >>> impression? >>> >>> I am definitely in favor of adopting one, if there isn't one in place! >>> >>> Logistically, Geek Feminism is also not a formal organization--they were >>> recently described as an anarchist collective--so I think we could follow >>> their lead pretty easily. We could make a mail alias that goes to a >>> ROTATING team/committee (this is very important; people burn out, dealing >>> with these things for too long), for reporting purposes. IRC aliases are a >>> thing, too, right? >>> >>> -coral -- Peter Murray Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS [log in to unmask] +1 678-235-2955 800.999.8558 x2955