 |
 |
While Risa was spot on with my criticisms about the survey approach, I want to be clear that there are two issues here. One is having a policy for when it does come to research collection related to the community and setting standards for what we expect to see. This is especially true when it comes to sensitive topics. The second issue is the debate that came up about topics are "permitted" in this community. The proposed code of conduct changes address both. The current conversation about anonymity only concerns the first, unless one intends to use the absence of anonymity to make this a difficult place to discuss a multitude of issues that don't involve programming languages. 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 Josh Welker Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 12:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]" I agree with Kate here. This seems too much like those cases where one patron leaves an empty bag of chips on a table, so the whole library plasters obnoxious "NO FOOD ON THE TABLES" signs all over and creates a 12-person ad hoc committee to discuss food policies. I don't think we need to create a formal policy based on what happened here except maybe a statement that we will not passive-aggressively shut down conversations about sensitive issues due to being deemed off-topic. Joshua Welker Library Systems and Discovery Coordinator James C. Kirkpatrick Library University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093 JCKL 2260 660.543.8022 On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:19 AM S B < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > In at least one initial post early on, I did identify myself. I think > this is a considerate group of professionals and I would like for you > to consider some things: > > -The survey was anonymous. Anyone could have emailed me at any time > with questions on more specifics about the survey and some did and I > answered those questions. I understand that some disagree with the > oath I took on that. I have heard from some of you and in the future, > I will make some if the suggested modifications. > > -Throughout the time of collecting information and writing part one of > the series on sexual harassment in libraries, I received some very > critical and negative messages. In part one of the series, I revealed > my own experience with sexual harassment, outside the library > profession, in the author’s note. I decided to do this at the last > moment. When you get your in box filled with with some mean messages, > it is not fun and when you get called out, it is also not fun. When I > revealed my own experience with sexual harassment, it was certainly my > own choice but also putting yourself out there. Even though I am the > writer, I still have a right to privacy and right to protect myself from in some cases cruel messages. > > -I am human and nothing I ever do will be perfect including parts of > the investigative process. Some things could have done differently > and I have already taken owner that. > > I appreciate you reading this and I hope as you all move forward that > you will take into consideration the thoughts of where a poster is > coming from and that person is human too. > > Grateful, > Sunni Battin > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:49 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_d > og > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >