 |
 |
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/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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>