 |
 |
Maybe it would be better to have an odd number of people for the group in case of disagreement? 9 or 11 people would ensure nothing got stuck half-way. ______________________________ Catherine Dixon Library Assistant - Discovery Services Simmons College Library 300 The Fenway Boston, MA 02115 P: 617-521-2790 [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Riley Childs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > >