I want to respond to this discussion.  Please note that I quote Kyle here, but 
I am taking his comments as representative of what many people might be 
thinking.  I am not trying to single out anyone, but these happen to be the 
words at hand. 

Kyle said: " For clarity, am I correct in understanding we are collecting 
feedback only on those volunteering to become duty officers, and not on those 
who compile/manage harassment information nor on those responsible for 
determining what actions to take in response to incidents of harassment?"

Does it really matter what kind of feedback people provide? The point of the 
feedback is to allow people to comment on the proposed duty officers, but if 
people want to comment privately or anonymously about anything related to duty 
officers, harassment, etc., they should feel free to do so.  I don't think it 
makes sense to try to restrict that by very narrowly defining what sort of 
feedback people are supposed to provide.  Also, I don't think we need to worry 
about the possibility that proposed duty officers who are not among the final 
group of duty officers implies that those candidates were reported as 
harassers.  It may mean they have scheduling conflicts.  It may mean that they 
have philosophical differences with code4lib's expectations for duty officers.  
It might mean they just changed their minds. I don't think we will all leap to 
the conclusion that candidates that are not selected are harassers.

I also want to respond to some other comments.  Kyle said, "It's unfortunate 
people feel a need to move discussions offline -- I interpret this as meaning 
some people are afraid of repercussions for respectfully sharing thoughts on an 
issue that affects everyone."  It would be nice if we lived in a world where we 
could all speak openly about all issues.  That is not the case.  Some of us are 
silenced because of what we have said publicly, or we silence ourselves because 
we area afraid of what might happen if we respond publicly. (I had those exact 
concerns before writing this response.  I thought of staying quiet because I 
didn't want to ruffle any feathers.)  I think this is especially so for this 
topic.  We're not debating the best software here; we're talking about being 
attacked (verbally or physically) as a human being.  Some people need a cushion 
of anonymity or private discussion to feel secure enough to participate in 
these conversations. 

What some attendees might not understand is that some of us have to use 
gender-neutral account names in life just so that we can participate in the 
same way that they can.  We are very much afraid of repercussions for 
respectfully sharing our thoughts, even on something that seems value neutral 
like a pull request. 

code4lib is very inclusive and supportive, but that does not guarantee that 
everyone who attends the conference is going to be on his or her best behavior. 
 Kyle wrote, "My concern is that while harassment and assault are real issues, 
they have taken a life of their own and divert too much focus from helping 
people and improving everyone's skills to protecting people from attack." I 
worry about diverted focus too, but what I really worry about are how people 
who are harassed have their focus diverted from full and easy participation in 
a professional conference.  

I regret to say that people who have experienced harassment or assault will 
most likely be relieved at the idea of duty officers.  The people who think 
that duty officers are unnecessary or that they divert attention away from 
other efforts are most likely not speaking from experience of harassment or 
assault. (Here's another layer of privilege we can all consider: the privilege 
of not having been the victim of harassment or assault.)  I suggest that people 
who have not experienced harassment or assault give the other people the sense 
of support that having duty officers provide.  I am all in favor of improving 
everyone's skills, but, as Eric said, that is not mutually exclusive with 
having duty officers.  We try to teach people to behave appropriately in 
society at large, but we still have police officers.  Parachutists - even 
highly experienced ones - jump with a second parachute.  I don't want there to 
be a world of harassment and assault, and I strongly favor more educat!
 ion to help prevent it.  But that does not mean we should perform this stunt 
without a net.  We should not say, "We should strive to live in a world where 
there is no harassment and assault at conferences, therefore we should provide 
no support for that possibility." Some attendees will sleep more peacefully 
knowing that there are points of contact in case something terrible happens.  
This is especially useful in an unfamiliar city when you're living at a hotel.  
You don't want to be worried about details like who to call or what will happen 
to your stuff in your room while you are dealing with the consequences of 
someone else's terrible choices. 

Reply via email to