 |
 |
Here's an eaxample. suppose Alice is worried about harrassment by Bob. Eve has on the list of proposed duty officers. Unfortunately Eve and Alice were once a couple, so Alice would feel comfortable going to Eve to address a possible situation with Bob. There's no accusation against Eve, but it would be best for everyone if Eve was not put in a difficult situation. And Alice really doesn't want to explain her relationship with Eve. (No one should be forced to explain a relationship!) It's best to attract many volunteers and pick a few, maye out of a hat, without prejudice to those who aren't picked. > On Feb 24, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Fully agreed that anonymity is sometimes necessary to protect individuals. > > My interpretation of the email I responded to was that the anonymous form > was for feedback for the idea of the proposed duty officers rather than the > suitability of particular individuals to fill this role. > > My apologies to everyone if I have misunderstood. > > If the idea is to collect feedback pertaining to specific individuals, I > believe it would have been more appropriate to collect anonymous feedback > that potentially included everyone (rather than a select few) so that > suitability concerns could be resolved before people put their name on a > volunteer list. As things are now, anyone on the duty officer list who > doesn't wind up serving for any reason might be wrongly assumed to have > been barred for being a harasser regardless of any public explanation. > > I hope that the process for resolving accusations would be a matter of > public discussion. > > kyle > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Apologies for the short reply with my manager's hat firmly in place - >> transparency is good, but there are times when a particular process or >> discussion should not be public. Given the sensitive nature of some of the >> feedback that might be presented about particular individuals, transparency >> would not be a good fit for the feedback process. >> >> Thanks, >> Becky >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Eric Phetteplace <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>