 |
 |
I think we're all perfectly fine with discussing this issue in the open, by all means let's do that. The Code of Conduct on GitHub is a shining example of this; the whole discussion is in the open and you can see the conversations around particular passages unfold in the issues queue. The problem is discussing specific concerns one has with *individuals.* That does not feel appropriate for a public listserv, whether we're talking about a victim, harasser, or potential duty officer. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I do not see how the inability to voice concerns about individuals stops us from having a general conversation on how to be an inclusive and safe community. Much as we can "improve everyone's skills", as preconferences of the past have done, while *also* having designated duty officers with a specific responsibility. These are not mutually exclusive and indeed are complimentary. Best, Eric On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > We live in a world where the are repercussions of calling out people for > sexual harassment. Not to put too fine a point on it, we live in a world > where people were recently sued for doing just that. So I think it's > completely necessary to have an anonymous method of raising concerns, if > you really want people to raise concerns with the conference organizers. > > -Esmé > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > >> 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 >