 |
 |
> Feedback about proposed duty officers can be emailed to directly to me, > [log in to unmask], or submitted via this anonymous form > <http://goo.gl/forms/YKfWRwyiOr>. > It's unfortunate people feel a need to move discussions offline -- I interpret this as meaning some people are afraid of repercussions for respectfully sharing thoughts on an issue that affects everyone. I believe we agree as a community we cannot be our best if the ideas and talents of any group are excluded. I believe we agree specific measures are needed to overcome structural barriers and provide opportunities to broad groups of people who still can't participate in the technology community on an equal basis. To be direct, I have concerns about the duty officer idea. I support the motivation behind the concept 100%. I have great respect for the people who have stepped up on this issue, both as technologists and as people in general. Being a self selected group, c4l has problems found in society at large. If the conference is at least as safe as other environments attendees encounter such as airports, streets, bars, and restaurants, I would hope the conference organizers could address issues when self policing (i.e. people looking out for each other) proved inadequate. My concern is that while harassment and assault are real issues, they have taken a life of their own and divert too much focus from helping people and improving everyone's skills to protecting people from attack. I fear these well meaning measures do not improve safety and possibly harden the few miscreants they're intended to mitigate. I hope my words will be perceived in the spirit intended. kyle