 |
 |
Sanctions, block in IRC? That would require mods or chanserv, right? Temporary ban from mailing list? I think it should be a rotating group of 10 people who vote on this, randomly picked (everyone gets a number and a program picks 10?) to eliminate politics of any sort, of course 10 is arbitrary. I think an arbitrator should randomly be selected from the 10 on a case by case basis? Just a few suggestions... And what is harassment? It can only be defined to a point, it is really on an individual level, the person being harassed defines it. Riley Childs Student Asst. Head of IT Services Charlotte United Christian Academy (704) 497-2086 RileyChilds.net Sent from my Windows Phone, please excuse mistakes ________________________________ From: Andreas Orphanides<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: 7/2/2014 9:34 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Community anti-harassment policy 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 >> > >