 |
 |
Thank you for the clarifications, Tom. That is what we need now. To speak to specifics and not what-ifs or general cases that might happen. Katherine Deibel | PhD Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian Syracuse University Libraries T 315.443.7178 [log in to unmask] 222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244 Syracuse University -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tom Johnson Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:05 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]" > As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that > if someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations for asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would use sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for myself when i say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation. my apologies. my implication was not at all meant along these lines. on the contrary, i think the transparency issues in this case are utterly clear. the work undertaken by yourself and others to address them has my complete support. what i object to is the idea, as exemplified in Eric's posts of June 28, that unsigned posts to this board constitute suspicious activity and that the normal administrative response is to de-anonymize in order to "get rid of them". i'm not aware of that being a practice here. if it has been, i'm extremely uncomfortable with it. in either case, Eric's reference to this enforcement practice was sudden, apparently unconnected to any documented policy or process, and coupled with claims that the entire subject matter of sexual harassment is unwelcome on this board. this combination seems chilling to me; it certainly makes /me/ reluctant to continue my limited participation here. this is what i meant by "intimidation". again, apologies for the confusion. i was initially reluctant to be so direct about attributing issues to specific posts or people. it's clear to me now that if i'm going to chime in, that directness is called for. - tom On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:50 AM Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to > >identify > themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with > legitimate concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the > information being > solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate > than anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that > intimidation. > > As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that > if someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging > information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations > for asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who > would use sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for > myself when i say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation. > > > --- > Natasha Allen (she/her) > System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library San José State > University > 1 Washington Square > San José , CA 95192 > [log in to unmask] > 408-808-2655 > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:23 AM Tom Johnson < > [log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy. > > > > as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can > > understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in > > both private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the > > argument that restricting naming here would improve the quality or > > civility of posts appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for > > the restriction, any > rule > > would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and topics. > > > > to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, > > excluding people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the > > rule. the > discussion > > has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be excluded: > > "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, > > but > i'd > > put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly > > reasonable issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community. > unless > > our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy > > bosses, that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes > > me worry > very > > much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice. > > > > finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to > identify > > themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with > legitimate > > concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information > > being > > solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate > > than anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that > > intimidation. > > > > best, > > > > tom > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:14 AM Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy. > > > > > > as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can > > > understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in > > > both private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the > > > argument that restricting naming here would improve the quality or > > > civility of posts appears unsupported. absent a compelling need > > > for the restriction, any > > rule > > > would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and > topics. > > > > > > to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, > excluding > > > people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the > > discussion > > > has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be > excluded: > > > "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, > > > but > > i'd > > > put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly > > > reasonable issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community. > > unless > > > our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy > bosses, > > > that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me > > > worry > > very > > > much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice. > > > > > > finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to > > identify > > > themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with > > legitimate > > > concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the > > > information > being > > > solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to > > > intimidate > than > > > anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that > > > intimidation. > > > > > > best, > > > > > > tom > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:23 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > >> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems > > >> like there is a good technical reason for doing so. To disallow > > >> the LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some > > >> participant's mail > > from > > >> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" status by > > >> the receiving mail agent). > > >> > > >> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good reasons > > >> to use them (as have been described in other messages in this > > >> thread). The > > use of > > >> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that signal > > >> into account as they read and consider the content of the > > >> message. I > > wouldn't > > >> want to see aliases banned from the list. I think it is also a > > >> health practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever > > >> possible so community members get to know each other. > > >> > > >> > > >> Peter > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Peter Murray > > >> Open Source Community Advocate > > >> Index Data, LLC > > >> On Jul 12, 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan > > >> <[log in to unmask]>, > > >> wrote: > > >> > With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called > > >> > DMARC, > it > > >> is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have > > >> your email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a feature. > [0] > > >> Yes, direct replies to an address like > > >> [log in to unmask] do make it back to > > >> the original sender, but without some sort of signature can be > > >> very > > difficult > > >> to know to whom one is replying. > > >> > > > >> > I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily identifiable. > One > > >> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their > > affiliation, > > >> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, > > >> and > 2) > > >> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message > > >> you > can > > >> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my > > >> address > > is > > >> [log in to unmask] The posting above works because there is/was a > > >> full signature. Postings from [log in to unmask] are > > >> difficult > to > > >> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM < > > >> [log in to unmask]> with no signature > > >> I > > think > > >> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you > > >> are a dog." [1] > > >> > > > >> > [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp > > >> > [1] dog - > > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a > > _dog > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >