Print

Print


Hi All,

Just wanted to let everyone know that we've had an addition duty officer
volunteer this morning whose name has now been added to the list, Julie
Swierczek.

And a reminer that today is the last day to provide feedback on proposed
duty officers so that we can move forward with preparing for the
conference. The full list is available at:
http://wiki.code4lib.org/Duty_Officers#Proposed_2016_Duty_Officers

Thanks
Chad

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:20 PM Ranti Junus <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I, for one, really appreciate those who volunteered their time to be duty
> officers. I saw there are only 7 people who volunteered [1]. Would some
> more people consider to put their name as well, at least as backup(s) for
> the duty officer during the shift? (alas, I'm not going to this year's
> code4lib so I can't volunteer.)
>
> Thanks for considering.
>
>
> ranti.
>
> [1] http://wiki.code4lib.org/Duty_Officers#Proposed_2016_Duty_Officers
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > You are correct in that we are compiling feedback on possible duty
> > officers. Going back to Chad's call for volunteers email [1], here is the
> > brief description of what the officers will be and will not be doing:
> >
> > Briefly, a duty officers is:
> >
> >    - a highly visible point of contact for conference attendees for any
> > possible enforcement or violation of the #codeofconduct4lib
> >    - responsible for taking initial reports of problems and referring
> them
> > to conference organizers or to appropriate services
> >    - willing to be interrupted from regular conference program or
> > activities during their shift
> >
> > Duty officers are not:
> >
> >    - expected to answer general queries for the conference
> >    - responsible for handling incidents beyond the initial report
> >    - expected to perform duties of professional counselors, security, or
> > other emergency professionals - only to refer to professional services
> when
> > deemed appropriate
> >
> > And a little bit of context - the duty officer roll came out of the
> > discussion on a pull request on GitHub [2] as a way to address the lack
> of
> > formal reporting and enforcement procedures of the #codeofconduct4lib
> faced
> > by last year's local planning committee. This is a step to help remedy
> the
> > current deficiency so future local planning committees are able to have a
> > real-life, actionable procedural structure in place instead of trying to
> > create that procedure on the fly.
> >
> > So, we cannot pull names from a hat if these folks are going to help the
> > local planning committee in implementing the #codeofconduct4lib. Pulling
> > names from a hat completely removes much needed context in the selection
> > process. If I remember correctly, there was a code4lib talk some time ago
> > that touched on considering various contexts surrounding technology...
> >
> > [Planning ahead? Actual procedures? In code4lib? What a strange time we
> > live in...]
> >
> > [1]
> https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1602&L=CODE4LIB&F=&S=&P=76899
> > [2] https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/pull/53
> >
> >
> --
> Bulk mail.  Postage paid.
>