Having not read the original "SWC for high school" thread, I have now reviewed some of it in the light of the recent Code of Conduct issues. I am trying to sensitise myself to the subtleties of Codes of Conduct.
On 5 May 2016 at 18:55, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi (mainly to Jonah, but about SWC policy in general), > > Spaced Girl told me by private email that you (Jonah) emailed her > to say that you had unsubscribed her from the discussion list. I assume > this was because she first used the word "asshole", as in: > > "rather than have to receive asshole teaching statements" (about > Dirk's rather abrupt and unhelpful email) > > - and then she used the word "shit" in her recent email, as in: > > "It's a theoretical piece of shit" (about the code of conduct). > > You (Jonah) publicly emailed in reply to the first of these, and > referred Spaced Girl generally to the code of conduct. > > I must say it wasn't clear to me what you meant specifically in the > code of conduct, and I thought Spaced Girl's general objection to > Dirk's email was reasonable. I also think that the reference to > "asshole teaching statements" is referring to the statement not the > person, so is not a personal attack. Dirk's email was asking Spaced Girl to deanonymise. I found it a bit snarky, but professional. It was also wrong, in that we do not require that people have a verifiable identity. Possibly this last fact was not completely clear (I did not know, either way). In any case, being wrong is not a code of conduct issue. I think Spaced Girl's general objection to Dirk's email was reasonable, but the tone of it was not professional. Ironically the Code of Conduct could have provided an out here. Spaced Girl could have said "I am being bullied for being anonymous" (I don't think it was bullying, but I am not on the Code of Conduct committee, and I think it would have been a reasonable referral). > > I'm at a loss as to what you objected to in the second email if it > was not just the word "shit" - but that seems pretty ordinary > conversational use to me. I don't see any mention of swearing in the > CoC. It is ordinary conversational use. It is not professional. > In any case, I was worried to hear that you thought these two emails > were enough to justify throwing someone off the list. In general, it > seems to me that it will be damaging to frank discussion if list users > are aware that they could get thrown off for such minor things, and > without any direct and specific warning (as in "if you swear in an > email again, we will unsubscribe you"). Otherwise we are in the > unpleasant situation where we have to worry about what is going to > upset you, without knowing exactly what that is. > > Can I humbly suggest that, unless this is already done somewhere, SWC > formalizes what exact steps should be taken when throwing someone off > the list, and err strongly towards not doing that? I think this is a > case where more aggressive enforcement is counterproductive. It > doesn't make you feel more welcome if you know you have to be very > careful what you say. I agree. The Code of Conduct should be enforced by one person's fiat, and in the interests of transparency, any process should be formal. David Jones _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
