 |
 |
This PR to the CoC was merged more than a week ago: https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/commit/b6cc99c7b7e16cdf278b5c4565d661ba53c011ea 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 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >