 |
 |
It does add to the confusion. Furthermore, since we link to the main branch of that repo as our Code of Conduct, it is concerning that it was edited significantly without consultation of the larger community. 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 Jenn C Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:37 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]" No apology needed, honestly trying to get a grip on the process! On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:02 AM Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Jenn- > > Sorry — I merged the other PR prematurely. I didn't mean to > short-circuit discussion here, and I would be happy to revert that > change if anyone would like me to do that. > > Since the other PR is open for comments ( > https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/pull/80), I think it's > probably better to just resolve the discussion there. > > -Esmé > > > On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > This PR to the CoC was merged more than a week ago: > > > > > https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/commit/b6cc99c7b7e16cdf278 > b5c4565d661ba53c011ea > > > > > > I think (????????? see GH comments previously) that is different > > from the PR that was announced for comments. This PR introduced > > (again I think??) this language which talks about how anonymity > > should be handled. I don't think this implies any fundamental change > > to the functioning of the > list. I > > am a little confused why this PR was merged without discussion but > > the other PR announced and what process is actually happening. > > > > jenn > > > > ### Anonymity > > > > In general the community prefers to know who is writing. Exceptions > > may arise when the you feel at risk; in that case, the you may > > contact one or more [Community Support > > Volunteers](css_volunteers.md) for help > forwarding > > your message. At the least, your message should include a *reason* > > for > why > > you are choosing to be anonymous. For example: > > > > * "I'm looking for advice on how to present myself for another job, > > but > my > > boss doesn't know I'm looking" > > * "I'd like some advice in dealing with a programming conflict, and > > other members of the team are on this list" > > > > ### Surveys > > > > If you wish to ask people on the listserv to participate in a > > survey, you should minimally identify: > > > > * yourself > > * purpose of the survey > > * the reason you're asking **in this listserv** > > * what kinds of information you're collecting > > * (if collecting identifying information such as email address, > > name), > what > > you plan to do with it, and how you'll keep it secure. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:26 AM EDWIN VINCENT SPERR <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > >> I personally agree that requiring verified identities for posters > >> is potentially *really* disruptive to the list. It seems a > >> disproportionate response to what is still mostly a theoretical risk. > >> > >> I also trust that any changes to the fundamental functioning of > >> this > list > >> would only be undertaken after a period of broad discussion > >> followed by > a > >> (very) formal vote. This list is common property and is still a > >> primary communication channel for this community. Decisions > >> regarding changes to it's function (or the rules that govern its > >> participants) should be made democratically. > >> > >> > >> Edwin V. Sperr, MLIS > >> AU/UGA Medical Partnership > >> Office of Graduate Medical Education Clinical Information Librarian > >> > >> St. Mary’s Hospital > >> 1230 Baxter Street > >> Athens, GA 30606 > >> > >> p: 706-389-3864 > >> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | [log in to unmask]<mailto: > >> [log in to unmask]> > >> w: > >> medicalpartnership.usg.edu<http://www.medicalpartnership.usg.edu/> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of > >> Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]> > >> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:29 PM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note > >> [admiistratativia]" > >> > >> [External Sender] > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> Thank you for responding with your clarifications. Much appreciated. > >> > >> Natasha > >> > >> --- > >> 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 1:08 PM Tom Johnson < > >> [log in to unmask]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >