 |
 |
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_dog > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >