 |
 |
As Anne notes in her message, she, Francis and I committed to this publicly at Code4lib 2019; for reference, here's the lightning talk I gave: Slides: http://bit.ly/c4l19-csv Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXYIjJrfqnI#t=49m43s thanks, Mark On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:35 AM Anne Slaughter < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Seconding Francis' points, and adding that this "failure" does not rest on > his shoulders. Mark, Francis, and I publicly committed in San Jose to > working to expand the role of the CSS/CSVs to better support the community > in situations like this. This work unfortunately hasn't been on any of our > front burners yet for all the reasons you might suspect in a volunteer > leadership role. But we have a systemic issue with the community's code of > conduct. It is written to specifically restrict enforcement to the annual > conference, which by definition doesn't give any clear or transparent > guidance in dealing with issues outside of the conference proceedings. The > work to address that starts now with the process Bobbi introduces in her > message, and I assure you that we are committed to doing it openly. It's > absolutely not ideal that it's happening in a reactive rather than > proactive state, and for that I apologize as well. > > Anne Slaughter > Director of Technology Services > Reaching Across Illinois Library System > Burr Ridge Office > Phone: 630.734.5127 > Fax: 630.734.5050 > [log in to unmask] > https://www.railslibraries.info > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM -0500, "Francis Kayiwa" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > Heya Kate my responses interleaved. For starters if there's any opacity > I will take this as my fault/oversight. You, Anne, Mark and I spoke in > San Jose about the transition to the CSSCSV group after the conference > and promised to work on this once we were done. Unfortunately I've been > dealing with lots of personal grief and this took less priority.... > > On 7/3/19 12:37 PM, Kate Deibel wrote: > > Honestly, this is worrisome to me. > > > > First, who are the members of the Community Support Squad? I can find no > mention of it anywhere on the website or the wiki. And it's disturbing that > such a group let such a coincidence in lack of coverage occur. Yes, there > were people listed for the 2019 conference, but to our knowledge, that was > to be only for the conference. > > It is the same group that was volunteered at the conference. > > https://2019.code4lib.org/conduct/#officers > > We didn't expect every one to want to continue but all the volunteers > offered to hang on during the transition process which once again I > failed to deliver on. > > > > > Two, shutting down any conversation while an unknown cabal (redundant, I > know) discusses a solution that is to come with no projected timeline not > only shuts down hurt but also prevents people from speaking up against any > hurt that has or is still happening. Imagine if you had done this exact > intervention yesterday after the emails about how the C4L mailing list was > only to about CODE. You would have prevented the many posters who stood up > to counter that narrative. Any teaching moments or learning that have come > afterwards would also have been squashed. All that would remain would be > the unchallenged statements of what the C4L community is only about: code. > That silence would speak way more hurt. Sure, the Community Support Squad > will eventually raise a solution... I mean a "pull request"... > > Bobbi pointed out (and I told you about a week ago via our DM twitter > that we were mostly out). Now it is fair to imagine if I'd actually > followed through on establishing a CSSCSV group as I promised you that > this perhaps could have been handled very differently. Again. Blame me > for this and that would be fair. > > > > > It's uncomfortably ironic in that this conversation started with > concerns about the transparency of the authorship and the procedures behind > the sexual harassment articles but is now being "handled" by an opaque > process where we are told to wait until the mystery box goes ping. > > > > I disagree here. The process isn't opaque. The processes will be > discussed and we welcome PR's via the aforementioned pull request. > Furthermore if that doesn't work, you and others are welcome to send > messages to [log in to unmask] > > I want to stress, I've gone rogue here and I am speaking without > consulting with the rest of the CSSCSV team. > > Cheers, > ./fxk >