Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Karen Coyle]

Deborah,

I'm not sure what you mean about something for the offender, so some 
examples would be good. My big concern is that we not create a new group 
of "outsiders" -- folks who've been told they've offended someone and 
therefore are made to feel uncomfortable. I fully understand the 
pushback from people who feel that all of this will have a chilling 
effect and that some folks will be made to feel "guilty." How do we 
avoid that?


I'd recommend big group hugs at the closing of the conference to show we 
all still love each other, but, damn, the 70's are long gone! :-)


kc


On 1/31/13 7:26 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:

Thank you Becky, Karen and Gary for your answers (and excuse the delay 
replying; have been attempting to clear my head despite the heat and an achy 
ankle combining against me).

The "backup" buttons are a good idea, and I definitely support both Becky and 
Karen's suggestions for additions to the policy. I think it's helpful breaking it down 
into separate parts. It's especially helpful to have expectations for the community, 
since the more the community can be trusted, the more safe people will feel to mention 
when something's an issue.

Would it be useful to have something (whether as part of the CoC or just some 
discussion) for the 'offender' as well? Not so much for the person who intends 
to offend, because they're going to do that wherever they think they can; but 
for the person who didn't intend to offend (and/or doesn't think they did) or 
the person who wants to avoid offending (while still actually enjoying the 
party)? I recall some stuff on that angle from a recent discussion of sf 
conventions, and should be able to dig up links if it's of interest to anyone 
here.

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Becky 
Yoose
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 1:59 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision 
Making (was Zoia)

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Fitchett, Deborah 
 wrote:


So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or make 
spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn named) 
really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call it, a 
problem because it decreases the feeling of community.

So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?

That's my question.

Different people will have different answers, but here's mine to answer your 
question:

I'm breaking this into two parts: the Incident and the Community Response

1. Incident happens. Inform the offender that he/she has affected you 
negatively. Oftentimes, as you pointed out, stuff like this is unintentional, 
and the accidental offender and offended will resolve the incident by having 
that initial discussion. I would predict that most incidents will be resolved 
here.

2. If offender insists that he/she did not offend, or if offender is actively 
harassing you, then you will need a third party to step in.
These people have either been indicated by the CoC or by the listserv as those 
who you should go to for help.

If you are at a conference, find the conference organizer or staff person. For 
#c4l13, that would be Francis. If you can't find Francis, there will be other 
conference staff that would be available to help if the situation calls for 
immediate action.

If you are in the #code4lib IRC, the zoia command to list people designated as 
channel helpers is @helpers. I'd assume that there is at least one helper in 
the channel at most times.

For the listserv, you have a free-for-all for public messages; however, this 
listserv does have a maintainer, Eric Lease Morgan.


3. Wider community response to Incident:

If the incident doesn't past the first step (discussion reveals offense was 
unintentional, apologies said, public note or community is informed of 
resolution), then there's not much the community can do at this point since the 
incident was resolved without outside intervention.

If incident results in corrective action, the community should support the 
decision made by the Help in Step 2 if they choose corrective action, like 
ending a talk early or banning from the listserv, as well as support those 
harmed by the incident, either publicly or privately (whatever individuals are 
comfortable with).

If the Help in Step 2 run into issues implementing the CoC, then the Help 
should come to the community with these issues and the community should revise 
the CoC as they see fit.


So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how the CoC 
is enforced. Pe

Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Jonathan Rochkind]

That seems like a great idea to me, Deborah. 

From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Fitchett, 
Deborah [deborah.fitch...@lincoln.ac.nz]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:26 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision 
Making (was Zoia)

Thank you Becky, Karen and Gary for your answers (and excuse the delay 
replying; have been attempting to clear my head despite the heat and an achy 
ankle combining against me).

The "backup" buttons are a good idea, and I definitely support both Becky and 
Karen's suggestions for additions to the policy. I think it's helpful breaking 
it down into separate parts. It's especially helpful to have expectations for 
the community, since the more the community can be trusted, the more safe 
people will feel to mention when something's an issue.

Would it be useful to have something (whether as part of the CoC or just some 
discussion) for the 'offender' as well? Not so much for the person who intends 
to offend, because they're going to do that wherever they think they can; but 
for the person who didn't intend to offend (and/or doesn't think they did) or 
the person who wants to avoid offending (while still actually enjoying the 
party)? I recall some stuff on that angle from a recent discussion of sf 
conventions, and should be able to dig up links if it's of interest to anyone 
here.

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Becky 
Yoose
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 1:59 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision 
Making (was Zoia)

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Fitchett, Deborah 
 wrote:

> So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or 
> make spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
> someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
> concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn 
> named) really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call 
> it, a problem because it decreases the feeling of community.
>
> So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?
>
> That's my question.

Different people will have different answers, but here's mine to answer your 
question:

I'm breaking this into two parts: the Incident and the Community Response

1. Incident happens. Inform the offender that he/she has affected you 
negatively. Oftentimes, as you pointed out, stuff like this is unintentional, 
and the accidental offender and offended will resolve the incident by having 
that initial discussion. I would predict that most incidents will be resolved 
here.

2. If offender insists that he/she did not offend, or if offender is actively 
harassing you, then you will need a third party to step in.
These people have either been indicated by the CoC or by the listserv as those 
who you should go to for help.

If you are at a conference, find the conference organizer or staff person. For 
#c4l13, that would be Francis. If you can't find Francis, there will be other 
conference staff that would be available to help if the situation calls for 
immediate action.

If you are in the #code4lib IRC, the zoia command to list people designated as 
channel helpers is @helpers. I'd assume that there is at least one helper in 
the channel at most times.

For the listserv, you have a free-for-all for public messages; however, this 
listserv does have a maintainer, Eric Lease Morgan.


3. Wider community response to Incident:

If the incident doesn't past the first step (discussion reveals offense was 
unintentional, apologies said, public note or community is informed of 
resolution), then there's not much the community can do at this point since the 
incident was resolved without outside intervention.

If incident results in corrective action, the community should support the 
decision made by the Help in Step 2 if they choose corrective action, like 
ending a talk early or banning from the listserv, as well as support those 
harmed by the incident, either publicly or privately (whatever individuals are 
comfortable with).

If the Help in Step 2 run into issues implementing the CoC, then the Help 
should come to the community with these issues and the community should revise 
the CoC as they see fit.


So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how the CoC 
is enforced. People will argue that a particular decision was unfair, and 
others will say that it didn't go far enough. We really can't stop people 
having opinions, but what we could do here is have constructive discussions 
that lead to something tangible (affirma

Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

Thank you Becky, Karen and Gary for your answers (and excuse the delay 
replying; have been attempting to clear my head despite the heat and an achy 
ankle combining against me).

The "backup" buttons are a good idea, and I definitely support both Becky and 
Karen's suggestions for additions to the policy. I think it's helpful breaking 
it down into separate parts. It's especially helpful to have expectations for 
the community, since the more the community can be trusted, the more safe 
people will feel to mention when something's an issue.

Would it be useful to have something (whether as part of the CoC or just some 
discussion) for the 'offender' as well? Not so much for the person who intends 
to offend, because they're going to do that wherever they think they can; but 
for the person who didn't intend to offend (and/or doesn't think they did) or 
the person who wants to avoid offending (while still actually enjoying the 
party)? I recall some stuff on that angle from a recent discussion of sf 
conventions, and should be able to dig up links if it's of interest to anyone 
here.

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Becky 
Yoose
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 1:59 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision 
Making (was Zoia)

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Fitchett, Deborah 
 wrote:

> So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or 
> make spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
> someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
> concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn 
> named) really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call 
> it, a problem because it decreases the feeling of community.
>
> So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?
>
> That's my question.

Different people will have different answers, but here's mine to answer your 
question:

I'm breaking this into two parts: the Incident and the Community Response

1. Incident happens. Inform the offender that he/she has affected you 
negatively. Oftentimes, as you pointed out, stuff like this is unintentional, 
and the accidental offender and offended will resolve the incident by having 
that initial discussion. I would predict that most incidents will be resolved 
here.

2. If offender insists that he/she did not offend, or if offender is actively 
harassing you, then you will need a third party to step in.
These people have either been indicated by the CoC or by the listserv as those 
who you should go to for help.

If you are at a conference, find the conference organizer or staff person. For 
#c4l13, that would be Francis. If you can't find Francis, there will be other 
conference staff that would be available to help if the situation calls for 
immediate action.

If you are in the #code4lib IRC, the zoia command to list people designated as 
channel helpers is @helpers. I'd assume that there is at least one helper in 
the channel at most times.

For the listserv, you have a free-for-all for public messages; however, this 
listserv does have a maintainer, Eric Lease Morgan.


3. Wider community response to Incident:

If the incident doesn't past the first step (discussion reveals offense was 
unintentional, apologies said, public note or community is informed of 
resolution), then there's not much the community can do at this point since the 
incident was resolved without outside intervention.

If incident results in corrective action, the community should support the 
decision made by the Help in Step 2 if they choose corrective action, like 
ending a talk early or banning from the listserv, as well as support those 
harmed by the incident, either publicly or privately (whatever individuals are 
comfortable with).

If the Help in Step 2 run into issues implementing the CoC, then the Help 
should come to the community with these issues and the community should revise 
the CoC as they see fit.


So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how the CoC 
is enforced. People will argue that a particular decision was unfair, and 
others will say that it didn't go far enough. We really can't stop people 
having opinions, but what we could do here is have constructive discussions 
that lead to something tangible (affirmation of decision, change in CoC, modify 
decision, etc,), instead of reproducing the comments section of a story on a 
news site.

I can add this as a new issue to the CoC Github, as supporting documentation to 
the code later today.

Thanks,
Becky



P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of t

Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Becky Yoose]

I've submitted the request to add my post to the CoC github at
https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/issues/25. I have a
couple of other thoughts roaming around my head atm, and might post a
couple of additions/tweaks to what I wrote in the issue thread.

Also, sorry for the typos in the last post. I wrote the post at 6 am
before consuming tea.

Lastly, to end your day...

Puppies: 
http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/puppy-bowl/games-and-more/puppy-cam.htm

and

Kittens: http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/too-cute/games-more/kitten-cam.htm

Thanks,
Becky

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Ranti Junus  wrote:
> +1 to the proposed approach. Thank you, Becky.
>
>
> ranti.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Mark A. Matienzo
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:
>>
>> > So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how
>> > the CoC is enforced. People will argue that a particular decision was
>> > unfair, and others will say that it didn't go far enough. We really
>> > can't stop people having opinions, but what we could do here is have
>> > constructive discussions that lead to something tangible (affirmation
>> > of decision, change in CoC, modify decision, etc,), instead of
>> > reproducing the comments section of a story on a news site.
>> >
>> > I can add this as a new issue to the CoC Github, as supporting
>> > documentation to the code later today.
>>
>> becky++
>>
>> I like the proposed approach.
>>
>> -mark
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bulk mail.  Postage paid.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Karen Coyle]

 harass people. This is a perfectly 
reasonable assumption and I'm more than happy to go along with it.



I just want there to be a reciprocal assumption that Code4Lib members wouldn't 
intentionally make spurious claims of having been harassed. That's fair, right? 
We're all nice people.



So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or make 
spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn named) 
really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call it, a 
problem because it decreases the feeling of community.



So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?



That's my question. It's the question I've been asking over and over, and every 
time I’ve asked it people have derailed the conversation to their own fears of 
being labelled *ist. This is an absolute straw argument. One thing the code of 
conduct doesn’t include as a sanction is for admin/helpers to stick a “Kick me, 
I’m a *ist” label on offenders’ backs.



Can we stop worrying about being labelled *ist and start worrying about how 
we're going to concretely demonstrate that we're not *ist?



Deborah

(Excuse the html format and bolding. But if one more person replies to my email 
without replying to my actual question I might resort to all-caps. And possibly 
quote liberally from 
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/resources/mirror-derailing-for-dummies/.)



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary 
McGath
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 7:35 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)



Establishing any principle has consequences beyond the situations people 
immediately think of. In this case, the principle is that harassment is defined 
by the emotions of the person claiming to be harassed.

Compounding this by declaring that acts which are judged subjectively and are insignificant in 
themselves constitute harassment because they "add up" creates a situation in which 
anyone can be charged with harassment and no defense is possible. You've said as much in saying 
"So excluding types of situations from even being considered as problems is unnecessary." 
_Any_ type of situation might be considered a harassment situation.



Of course, not just any type will be. That would result in a situation where 
anyone could bring charges and counter-charges on a whim, bringing the whole 
system down. What happens in practice is that the people with the best 
connections or the greater skill in manipulating the system will use it to 
intimidate others.



Here's an example: At IUPUI, a janitor was reading a book called "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish 
Defeated the Ku Klux Klan." A union official, for reasons I don't know -- maybe he just didn't like the janitor -- 
brought charges of "racial harassment" against the janitor, because he was "offended" at seeing a 
book that even mentioned the Klan. The university's affirmative action officer told him: "You used extremely poor 
judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the 
presence of your black co-workers." It took intervention from the ACLU and FIRE before IUPUI dropped disciplinary 
proceedings and apologized.



If harassment is in the eye of the beholder, then the janitor was "harassing" the union official 
simply by trying to learn about an "abhorrent subject." The official may have legitimately felt 
pain just from being reminded of the activities of the Klan in Indiana. Knowing there are lots of historical 
accounts of it might "add up." But the result, if it weren't for the determined efforts of some 
people, would have amounted to book-banning. Is that a path that library people should be starting down?





On 1/27/13 8:34 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:


I'm not creating any categories. Whether or not "unintentional harassment" is "actual harassment", 
it's still worth bothering with. Even if it's "a minor thing" it's still worth bothering with. Even if 
someone only harasses me "a little" because I'm a woman, it still decreases my enjoyment of the community 
we're participating in simply because I'm a woman and that's still worth bothering with.
Because all the hundreds of "unintentional" and "minor" and "little" bits of 
harassment add up. They really, really add up, you know? That one time some guy tried to rape me actually 
wasn't as impactful (for me personally; mileage varies a lot on this 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ranti Junus]

+1 to the proposed approach. Thank you, Becky.


ranti.


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Mark A. Matienzo
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:
>
> > So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how
> > the CoC is enforced. People will argue that a particular decision was
> > unfair, and others will say that it didn't go far enough. We really
> > can't stop people having opinions, but what we could do here is have
> > constructive discussions that lead to something tangible (affirmation
> > of decision, change in CoC, modify decision, etc,), instead of
> > reproducing the comments section of a story on a news site.
> >
> > I can add this as a new issue to the CoC Github, as supporting
> > documentation to the code later today.
>
> becky++
>
> I like the proposed approach.
>
> -mark
>



-- 
Bulk mail.  Postage paid.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

This sounds like a more constructive approach than creating a sweeping
harassment policy. Perhaps we're getting somewhere after all.

I don't think either the assumption that no Code4Lib members would
intentionally harass people or the assumption that no Code4Lib members
would spuriously claim to be harassed is safe. Any approach has to
regard both as possibilities. I'm involved with a non-professional
convention that has dealt with similar issues; it started out with a
proposal of a seriously overblown harassment policy before coming up
with a reasonable one.

Organizations are generally poor at dealing with issues that are
separately minor but add up to a concern. Official responses face the
choice between overreacting and not doing anything. Building individual
and cultural awareness is a better approach.

This means building a culture in which people consider it safe and
legitimate to respond to a perceived insult, and where the result
hopefully is dialogue rather than official censure or threats (even as
jokes) to beat people up. It means that when people notice this sort of
thing by their presumed friends, they should consider it reasonable to
take them aside and say quietly, "You came across as a bit of a jerk."

At science fiction conventions I've often seen "BACK UP" buttons to
encourage this kind of culture. As a computer person, I did a
double-take on this at first (and it's good advice in both senses), but
it's a constructive approach to a problem usually best dealt with on a
person-to-person basis.

Threats, stalking, and overt aggression are a different matter, of
course; there it's necessary to step in and take definite action.

On 1/28/13 10:55 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
> Firstly, there seems to be an assumption (explicit by some, implicit by 
> others) that Code4Lib members wouldn't intentionally harass people. This is a 
> perfectly reasonable assumption and I'm more than happy to go along with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I just want there to be a reciprocal assumption that Code4Lib members 
> wouldn't intentionally make spurious claims of having been harassed. That's 
> fair, right? We're all nice people.
> 
> 
> 
> So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or 
> make spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
> someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
> concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn 
> named) really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call 
> it, a problem because it decreases the feeling of community.
> 
> 
> 
> So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?
> 
> 
> 
> That's my question. It's the question I've been asking over and over, and 
> every time I’ve asked it people have derailed the conversation to their own 
> fears of being labelled *ist. This is an absolute straw argument. One thing 
> the code of conduct doesn’t include as a sanction is for admin/helpers to 
> stick a “Kick me, I’m a *ist” label on offenders’ backs.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we stop worrying about being labelled *ist and start worrying about how 
> we're going to concretely demonstrate that we're not *ist?
> 
> 
> 
> Deborah
> 
> (Excuse the html format and bolding. But if one more person replies to my 
> email without replying to my actual question I might resort to all-caps. And 
> possibly quote liberally from 
> https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/resources/mirror-derailing-for-dummies/.)
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary 
> McGath
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 7:35 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
> 
> 
> 
> Establishing any principle has consequences beyond the situations people 
> immediately think of. In this case, the principle is that harassment is 
> defined by the emotions of the person claiming to be harassed.
> 
> Compounding this by declaring that acts which are judged subjectively and are 
> insignificant in themselves constitute harassment because they "add up" 
> creates a situation in which anyone can be charged with harassment and no 
> defense is possible. You've said as much in saying "So excluding types of 
> situations from even being considered as problems is unnecessary." _Any_ type 
> of situation might be considered a harassment situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, not just any type will be. That would result in a situation where 
> anyone could bring charges and counter-charges on a whim, bringing the whole 
> system down. Wha

Re: [CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Mark A. Matienzo]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:

> So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how
> the CoC is enforced. People will argue that a particular decision was
> unfair, and others will say that it didn't go far enough. We really
> can't stop people having opinions, but what we could do here is have
> constructive discussions that lead to something tangible (affirmation
> of decision, change in CoC, modify decision, etc,), instead of
> reproducing the comments section of a story on a news site.
>
> I can add this as a new issue to the CoC Github, as supporting
> documentation to the code later today.

becky++

I like the proposed approach.

-mark

[CODE4LIB] Answer to your question Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Becky Yoose]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Fitchett, Deborah
 wrote:

> So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or 
> make spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
> someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
> concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn 
> named) really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call 
> it, a problem because it decreases the feeling of community.
>
> So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?
>
> That's my question.

Different people will have different answers, but here's mine to
answer your question:

I'm breaking this into two parts: the Incident and the Community Response

1. Incident happens. Inform the offender that he/she has affected you
negatively. Oftentimes, as you pointed out, stuff like this is
unintentional, and the accidental offender and offended will resolve
the incident by having that initial discussion. I would predict that
most incidents will be resolved here.

2. If offender insists that he/she did not offend, or if offender is
actively harassing you, then you will need a third party to step in.
These people have either been indicated by the CoC or by the listserv
as those who you should go to for help.

If you are at a conference, find the conference organizer or staff
person. For #c4l13, that would be Francis. If you can't find Francis,
there will be other conference staff that would be available to help
if the situation calls for immediate action.

If you are in the #code4lib IRC, the zoia command to list people
designated as channel helpers is @helpers. I'd assume that there is at
least one helper in the channel at most times.

For the listserv, you have a free-for-all for public messages;
however, this listserv does have a maintainer, Eric Lease Morgan.


3. Wider community response to Incident:

If the incident doesn't past the first step (discussion reveals
offense was unintentional, apologies said, public note or community is
informed of resolution), then there's not much the community can do at
this point since the incident was resolved without outside
intervention.

If incident results in corrective action, the community should support
the decision made by the Help in Step 2 if they choose corrective
action, like ending a talk early or banning from the listserv, as well
as support those harmed by the incident, either publicly or privately
(whatever individuals are comfortable with).

If the Help in Step 2 run into issues implementing the CoC, then the
Help should come to the community with these issues and the community
should revise the CoC as they see fit.


So that's my answer. In Real Life people will have opinions about how
the CoC is enforced. People will argue that a particular decision was
unfair, and others will say that it didn't go far enough. We really
can't stop people having opinions, but what we could do here is have
constructive discussions that lead to something tangible (affirmation
of decision, change in CoC, modify decision, etc,), instead of
reproducing the comments section of a story on a news site.

I can add this as a new issue to the CoC Github, as supporting
documentation to the code later today.

Thanks,
Becky

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

Firstly, there seems to be an assumption (explicit by some, implicit by others) 
that Code4Lib members wouldn't intentionally harass people. This is a perfectly 
reasonable assumption and I'm more than happy to go along with it.



I just want there to be a reciprocal assumption that Code4Lib members wouldn't 
intentionally make spurious claims of having been harassed. That's fair, right? 
We're all nice people.



So, given that we're all nice people who wouldn't intentionally harass or make 
spurious claims of harassment against each other, nevertheless sometimes 
someone will unintentionally say or do something that (especially given the 
concept of microagressions that Karen and I have alluded to and Kathryn named) 
really hurts someone else.  This is, whatever else you want to call it, a 
problem because it decreases the feeling of community.



So, how as a community should we respond when this happens?



That's my question. It's the question I've been asking over and over, and every 
time I’ve asked it people have derailed the conversation to their own fears of 
being labelled *ist. This is an absolute straw argument. One thing the code of 
conduct doesn’t include as a sanction is for admin/helpers to stick a “Kick me, 
I’m a *ist” label on offenders’ backs.



Can we stop worrying about being labelled *ist and start worrying about how 
we're going to concretely demonstrate that we're not *ist?



Deborah

(Excuse the html format and bolding. But if one more person replies to my email 
without replying to my actual question I might resort to all-caps. And possibly 
quote liberally from 
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/resources/mirror-derailing-for-dummies/.)



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary 
McGath
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 7:35 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)



Establishing any principle has consequences beyond the situations people 
immediately think of. In this case, the principle is that harassment is defined 
by the emotions of the person claiming to be harassed.

Compounding this by declaring that acts which are judged subjectively and are 
insignificant in themselves constitute harassment because they "add up" creates 
a situation in which anyone can be charged with harassment and no defense is 
possible. You've said as much in saying "So excluding types of situations from 
even being considered as problems is unnecessary." _Any_ type of situation 
might be considered a harassment situation.



Of course, not just any type will be. That would result in a situation where 
anyone could bring charges and counter-charges on a whim, bringing the whole 
system down. What happens in practice is that the people with the best 
connections or the greater skill in manipulating the system will use it to 
intimidate others.



Here's an example: At IUPUI, a janitor was reading a book called "Notre Dame 
vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan." A union 
official, for reasons I don't know -- maybe he just didn't like the janitor -- 
brought charges of "racial harassment" against the janitor, because he was 
"offended" at seeing a book that even mentioned the Klan. The university's 
affirmative action officer told him: "You used extremely poor judgment by 
insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially 
abhorrent subject in the presence of your black co-workers." It took 
intervention from the ACLU and FIRE before IUPUI dropped disciplinary 
proceedings and apologized.



If harassment is in the eye of the beholder, then the janitor was "harassing" 
the union official simply by trying to learn about an "abhorrent subject." The 
official may have legitimately felt pain just from being reminded of the 
activities of the Klan in Indiana. Knowing there are lots of historical 
accounts of it might "add up." But the result, if it weren't for the determined 
efforts of some people, would have amounted to book-banning. Is that a path 
that library people should be starting down?





On 1/27/13 8:34 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:

> I'm not creating any categories. Whether or not "unintentional harassment" is 
> "actual harassment", it's still worth bothering with. Even if it's "a minor 
> thing" it's still worth bothering with. Even if someone only harasses me "a 
> little" because I'm a woman, it still decreases my enjoyment of the community 
> we're participating in simply because I'm a woman and that's still worth 
> bothering with.

>

> Because all the hundreds of "unintentional" and "minor" and "littl

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

Establishing any principle has consequences beyond the situations people
immediately think of. In this case, the principle is that harassment is
defined by the emotions of the person claiming to be harassed.
Compounding this by declaring that acts which are judged subjectively
and are insignificant in themselves constitute harassment because they
"add up" creates a situation in which anyone can be charged with
harassment and no defense is possible. You've said as much in saying "So
excluding types of situations from even being considered as problems is
unnecessary." _Any_ type of situation might be considered a harassment
situation.

Of course, not just any type will be. That would result in a situation
where anyone could bring charges and counter-charges on a whim, bringing
the whole system down. What happens in practice is that the people with
the best connections or the greater skill in manipulating the system
will use it to intimidate others.

Here's an example: At IUPUI, a janitor was reading a book called "Notre
Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan." A
union official, for reasons I don't know -- maybe he just didn't like
the janitor -- brought charges of "racial harassment" against the
janitor, because he was "offended" at seeing a book that even mentioned
the Klan. The university's affirmative action officer told him: "You
used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book
related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence
of your black co-workers." It took intervention from the ACLU and FIRE
before IUPUI dropped disciplinary proceedings and apologized.

If harassment is in the eye of the beholder, then the janitor was
"harassing" the union official simply by trying to learn about an
"abhorrent subject." The official may have legitimately felt pain just
from being reminded of the activities of the Klan in Indiana. Knowing
there are lots of historical accounts of it might "add up." But the
result, if it weren't for the determined efforts of some people, would
have amounted to book-banning. Is that a path that library people should
be starting down?


On 1/27/13 8:34 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
> I'm not creating any categories. Whether or not "unintentional harassment" is 
> "actual harassment", it's still worth bothering with. Even if it's "a minor 
> thing" it's still worth bothering with. Even if someone only harasses me "a 
> little" because I'm a woman, it still decreases my enjoyment of the community 
> we're participating in simply because I'm a woman and that's still worth 
> bothering with.
> 
> Because all the hundreds of "unintentional" and "minor" and "little" bits of 
> harassment add up. They really, really add up, you know? That one time some 
> guy tried to rape me actually wasn't as impactful (for me personally; mileage 
> varies a lot on this kind of thing) as the hundreds of times guys merely 
> honked/whistled/catcalled when I'm walking along the street.
> 
> No-one's trying to treat every situation as equivalent, except perhaps you. 
> The code of conduct allows admins/helpers/whoever to take the precise nature 
> of the situation into account and choose an appropriate response. So 
> excluding types of situations from even being considered as problems is 
> unnecessary - and it's *really* counterproductive, because those types of 
> "minor" situations, in the aggregate, are as great a barrier to the inclusion 
> of underrepresented groups as any single "major" event.
> 
> Deborah 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary 
> McGath
> Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013 1:45 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
> 
> Miscommunication, error, and harassment are all legitimate concerns.
> Sometimes one person says something and another person hears it as offensive 
> where no offense was intended. Sometimes people say things based on 
> assumptions that they should have questioned but didn't.
> Sometimes they set out to dominate or hurt another person. These are three 
> different things, and treating them as equivalent is more likely to make the 
> situation worse than to help.
> 
> Creating the category of "unintentional harassment" diminishes the nature of 
> actual harassment. If the statement "I was harassed" means only "someone said 
> something with good intent that made me feel bad,"
> then harassment is a minor thing, not worth bothering with. When words are

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Karen Coyle]

I want to support Deborah on how the "bits add up." I will totally admit 
to being on a hair-trigger (to use a US-gun-centric expression) about 
certain social interactions because of a long history (I'm now in my 
mid-60's) of incidents that have created an unfortunate shit pile of 
stuff that I have had to deal with in my life. A person who has dealt 
with sexism or racism has had experiences that long precede a single 
interaction with you. You might consider this to be "overly sensitive", 
but I have to assure you that it really piles on. From the boss you 
praised me with "We are lucky to have hired you. If you were a man we'd 
have to be paying to twice as much;" to the professor who I spoke to 
after class who later referred to me as a "young man with a good idea" 
(because women obviously couldn't have "good ideas"); to the time I was 
chased by a car-ful of men on my way home from the library in college 
and had to save myself by jumping onto a doorstep of a house and hoping 
that someone would answer the door (a friend of mine found herself in 
the same situation and was raped by the guy who answered the door); and 
the fact that I had to put myself through college because a 1960's 
conservative family didn't think that education was important for 
women I could fill tomes with these examples. Each time we interact 
with someone, we are interacting with their entire self, their entire 
past. Yes, many of us are sensitive. We should see that as a good thing, 
because sensitivity is what brings about change.


Listen. Ask questions if you don't understand. And have respect for the 
experiences of others.


kc



On 1/27/13 5:34 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:

I'm not creating any categories. Whether or not "unintentional harassment" is "actual harassment", 
it's still worth bothering with. Even if it's "a minor thing" it's still worth bothering with. Even if 
someone only harasses me "a little" because I'm a woman, it still decreases my enjoyment of the community 
we're participating in simply because I'm a woman and that's still worth bothering with.

Because all the hundreds of "unintentional" and "minor" and "little" bits of 
harassment add up. They really, really add up, you know? That one time some guy tried to rape me actually 
wasn't as impactful (for me personally; mileage varies a lot on this kind of thing) as the hundreds of times 
guys merely honked/whistled/catcalled when I'm walking along the street.

No-one's trying to treat every situation as equivalent, except perhaps you. The code of conduct 
allows admins/helpers/whoever to take the precise nature of the situation into account and choose 
an appropriate response. So excluding types of situations from even being considered as problems is 
unnecessary - and it's *really* counterproductive, because those types of "minor" 
situations, in the aggregate, are as great a barrier to the inclusion of underrepresented groups as 
any single "major" event.

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary 
McGath
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013 1:45 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

Miscommunication, error, and harassment are all legitimate concerns.
Sometimes one person says something and another person hears it as offensive 
where no offense was intended. Sometimes people say things based on assumptions 
that they should have questioned but didn't.
Sometimes they set out to dominate or hurt another person. These are three 
different things, and treating them as equivalent is more likely to make the 
situation worse than to help.

Creating the category of "unintentional harassment" diminishes the nature of actual harassment. If 
the statement "I was harassed" means only "someone said something with good intent that made 
me feel bad,"
then harassment is a minor thing, not worth bothering with. When words are stretched, 
they're stretched in both directions; if harassment has nothing to do with intent, then 
it's a relatively minor issue, and people who harass in the normal sense of the word can 
hide behind the dilution of the term. If the stretched meaning of the word becomes 
normal, they can say, "Hey, what's the big deal? All I did was harass her a 
little."

Speech that "offends" simply on the basis that someone claims to be offended is a fourth 
category apart from miscommunication, error, and harassment. If it's a private conversation and 
someone says "Stop talking to me, hanging around me, etc.," that request should be 
respected regardless of the reason. But if we're talking about publi

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

I'm not creating any categories. Whether or not "unintentional harassment" is 
"actual harassment", it's still worth bothering with. Even if it's "a minor 
thing" it's still worth bothering with. Even if someone only harasses me "a 
little" because I'm a woman, it still decreases my enjoyment of the community 
we're participating in simply because I'm a woman and that's still worth 
bothering with.

Because all the hundreds of "unintentional" and "minor" and "little" bits of 
harassment add up. They really, really add up, you know? That one time some guy 
tried to rape me actually wasn't as impactful (for me personally; mileage 
varies a lot on this kind of thing) as the hundreds of times guys merely 
honked/whistled/catcalled when I'm walking along the street.

No-one's trying to treat every situation as equivalent, except perhaps you. The 
code of conduct allows admins/helpers/whoever to take the precise nature of the 
situation into account and choose an appropriate response. So excluding types 
of situations from even being considered as problems is unnecessary - and it's 
*really* counterproductive, because those types of "minor" situations, in the 
aggregate, are as great a barrier to the inclusion of underrepresented groups 
as any single "major" event.

Deborah 

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary 
McGath
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013 1:45 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

Miscommunication, error, and harassment are all legitimate concerns.
Sometimes one person says something and another person hears it as offensive 
where no offense was intended. Sometimes people say things based on assumptions 
that they should have questioned but didn't.
Sometimes they set out to dominate or hurt another person. These are three 
different things, and treating them as equivalent is more likely to make the 
situation worse than to help.

Creating the category of "unintentional harassment" diminishes the nature of 
actual harassment. If the statement "I was harassed" means only "someone said 
something with good intent that made me feel bad,"
then harassment is a minor thing, not worth bothering with. When words are 
stretched, they're stretched in both directions; if harassment has nothing to 
do with intent, then it's a relatively minor issue, and people who harass in 
the normal sense of the word can hide behind the dilution of the term. If the 
stretched meaning of the word becomes normal, they can say, "Hey, what's the 
big deal? All I did was harass her a little."

Speech that "offends" simply on the basis that someone claims to be offended is 
a fourth category apart from miscommunication, error, and harassment. If it's a 
private conversation and someone says "Stop talking to me, hanging around me, 
etc.," that request should be respected regardless of the reason. But if we're 
talking about public speech, a requirement to stop amounts to granting anyone's 
emotions a veto on other people's public statements, and I've already discussed 
the problem with that.

On 1/27/13 4:27 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
> There's a reason the code isn't oriented around intent: which is that it's 
> perfectly possibly to think one's an upstanding equitable-minded person but 
> still make offensive comments that do in fact constitute harassment. This is 
> another thing I can say "been there done that" about, in various contexts. I 
> *thought* I was being respectful - but I wasn't. On at least one occasion I 
> was saying something racist; on at least another I was demeaning a friend. 
> Completely unintentionally, but if you accidentally step on someone's foot 
> it's still your responsibility to back off and say sorry the instant you 
> become aware of the fact.
>
> (There may not be a universal objective consensus as to what is or 
> isn't offensive, but nor is there a universal objective consensus as 
> to what someone's intent is. People say "I didn't mean to be offensive 
> therefore I didn't harass you" all the time, sometimes ingenuously, 
> sometimes (as I did) absolutely sincerely, and how are we to tell the 
> two apart? Meantime someone still got hurt.)
>
> So a code of conduct needs to allow for unintentional harassment in a way 
> that protects the person who got hurt without being unduly censorious to the 
> person who hurt. Which this code does: it says ~"If you're asked to stop 
> harassing behaviour you're expected to comply". Because if you didn't intend 
> o

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

Miscommunication, error, and harassment are all legitimate concerns.
Sometimes one person says something and another person hears it as
offensive where no offense was intended. Sometimes people say things
based on assumptions that they should have questioned but didn't.
Sometimes they set out to dominate or hurt another person. These are
three different things, and treating them as equivalent is more likely
to make the situation worse than to help.

Creating the category of "unintentional harassment" diminishes the
nature of actual harassment. If the statement "I was harassed" means
only "someone said something with good intent that made me feel bad,"
then harassment is a minor thing, not worth bothering with. When words
are stretched, they're stretched in both directions; if harassment has
nothing to do with intent, then it's a relatively minor issue, and
people who harass in the normal sense of the word can hide behind the
dilution of the term. If the stretched meaning of the word becomes
normal, they can say, "Hey, what's the big deal? All I did was harass
her a little."

Speech that "offends" simply on the basis that someone claims to be
offended is a fourth category apart from miscommunication, error, and
harassment. If it's a private conversation and someone says "Stop
talking to me, hanging around me, etc.," that request should be
respected regardless of the reason. But if we're talking about public
speech, a requirement to stop amounts to granting anyone's emotions a
veto on other people's public statements, and I've already discussed the
problem with that.

On 1/27/13 4:27 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
> There's a reason the code isn't oriented around intent: which is that it's 
> perfectly possibly to think one's an upstanding equitable-minded person but 
> still make offensive comments that do in fact constitute harassment. This is 
> another thing I can say "been there done that" about, in various contexts. I 
> *thought* I was being respectful - but I wasn't. On at least one occasion I 
> was saying something racist; on at least another I was demeaning a friend. 
> Completely unintentionally, but if you accidentally step on someone's foot 
> it's still your responsibility to back off and say sorry the instant you 
> become aware of the fact.
> 
> (There may not be a universal objective consensus as to what is or isn't 
> offensive, but nor is there a universal objective consensus as to what 
> someone's intent is. People say "I didn't mean to be offensive therefore I 
> didn't harass you" all the time, sometimes ingenuously, sometimes (as I did) 
> absolutely sincerely, and how are we to tell the two apart? Meantime someone 
> still got hurt.)
> 
> So a code of conduct needs to allow for unintentional harassment in a way 
> that protects the person who got hurt without being unduly censorious to the 
> person who hurt. Which this code does: it says ~"If you're asked to stop 
> harassing behaviour you're expected to comply". Because if you didn't intend 
> offense then you'll want to stop as soon as you're aware you've offended. So 
> stop, and everyone moves on. You're not going to be banned for accidentally 
> stepping on someone's foot.
> 
> If you persist or if your actions were really egregious then that's another 
> matter and that's why we need to mention other possible sanctions. But these 
> aren't things you're likely to do accidentally, so there's no need to be 
> stressed.
> 
> Deborah
> 


-- 
Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
http://www.garymcgath.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Cary Gordon]

I think that whatever the powers that be or not be decide or come to
consensus upon should be incorporated in the How to Hack Code4Lib wiki
page and that the page should serve as the canonical touchstone for
the community.

That page is concise and to the point, both laudable qualities in my opinion.

Cary

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Shaun Ellis  wrote:
> If you didn't intend offense, then I think the fear is in being publicly
> labeled a *ist in front of your peers when you would be more than willing to
> comply when made aware or approached in private.  Public humiliation like
> that would be a form of punishment that may be undue. I get what you're
> saying, and I think everyone on all sides of the issue has made excellent
> points.
>
> It seems to me that any party hosting a "meat-space" event, has the right to
> implement, interpret, and enforce their own anti-harassment policy since
> they are the authority in that context.  Perhaps the one on GitHub can be
> used as boilerplate.
>
> I think Ian's idea of the "statement of belief" or "etiquette guidelines" is
> possibly more appropriate for online spaces, since in some cases there is no
> clear or actual authority.  Even when a fora has an admin (or perhaps
> @helpers in the IRC), it adds much more responsibility and visibility to
> their role than they may have signed up for.  Unlike a conference, it's year
> round responsibility to deal with any issues that may arise.
>
> I also like Jason's idea of highlighting/promoting the guidelines in online
> fora to make sure they are widely read.  For example, the wiki does have
> some basic guidelines in this area that might be worthy of their own
> "sticky" page:
> http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/How_to_hack_code4lib#Don.27t_be_sexist.2Fracist.2F.2Aist
>
> -Shaun
>
>
>
> On 1/27/13 4:27 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
>>
>> There's a reason the code isn't oriented around intent: which is that it's
>> perfectly possibly to think one's an upstanding equitable-minded person but
>> still make offensive comments that do in fact constitute harassment. This is
>> another thing I can say "been there done that" about, in various contexts. I
>> *thought* I was being respectful - but I wasn't. On at least one occasion I
>> was saying something racist; on at least another I was demeaning a friend.
>> Completely unintentionally, but if you accidentally step on someone's foot
>> it's still your responsibility to back off and say sorry the instant you
>> become aware of the fact.
>>
>> (There may not be a universal objective consensus as to what is or isn't
>> offensive, but nor is there a universal objective consensus as to what
>> someone's intent is. People say "I didn't mean to be offensive therefore I
>> didn't harass you" all the time, sometimes ingenuously, sometimes (as I did)
>> absolutely sincerely, and how are we to tell the two apart? Meantime someone
>> still got hurt.)
>>
>> So a code of conduct needs to allow for unintentional harassment in a way
>> that protects the person who got hurt without being unduly censorious to the
>> person who hurt. Which this code does: it says ~"If you're asked to stop
>> harassing behaviour you're expected to comply". Because if you didn't intend
>> offense then you'll want to stop as soon as you're aware you've offended. So
>> stop, and everyone moves on. You're not going to be banned for accidentally
>> stepping on someone's foot.
>>
>> If you persist or if your actions were really egregious then that's
>> another matter and that's why we need to mention other possible sanctions.
>> But these aren't things you're likely to do accidentally, so there's no need
>> to be stressed.
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
>> Ian Walls
>> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 3:24 AM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
>>
>> My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of
>> "harassment", particularly:
>>
>> "It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related
>> to gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation,
>> disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs,
>> sexual or discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)".
>>
>> I'

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Wilhelmina Randtke]

"we wouldn't have to worry about coding up rules that work for every
conceivable situation"

I agree with Ian Wells here.

It's a bad idea to try and cover every possible situation.  Formal
structure locks in something before it's tried and almost always that mean
the wrong thing is locked in.  Detailed restrictions on behavior are a bad
idea because they aren't effective at preventing bad behavior and later,
when you understand problem behaviors better or when new problems arise,
it's difficult to change a complex detailed policy.  A loose policy ends up
being easier to apply and enforce.

What should be covered concretely is how to handle a complaint.  If
complaints are handled well, then bad situations are more likely to be
dealt with, and misunderstandings or not-so-bad situations are more likely
to get to a point where the person who was offended can have closure, feel
like they were listened to, and move on without leaving the group.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ian Walls wrote:

> +1
>
> Perhaps, instead of a policy document (which is inherently rules-based), we
> have a statement of belief and a pledge to stand by it (which is more of a
> good-faith social contract).  Those of us who believe in it could sign it
> in
> some way, perhaps through GitHub  This way we'd still have a document to
> point people at, but we wouldn't have to worry about coding up rules that
> work for every conceivable situation.
>
> A basic statement of belief:
>
> We don't believe that people should harm each other.
>
> The basic situations we'd need to cover are:
>
> a) I am harmed by someone - a pledge to speak up, either to the person
> directly or to someone else in the community
> b) someone is harmed by me - a pledge to review my behavior and take
> appropriate action (apologize, or explain why I feel the behavior is
> justified)
> c) someone is harmed by someone else - a pledge to be willing to listen to
> both parties, and form our opinions of the situation in light of the
> statement of belief
>
> Do you all think something like this would work for the whole community?
>
>
> -Ian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:25 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
>
> >  The best way, in my mind,
> is to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok
> with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll
> think about that."
>
> I think that's a really good to try to create, Karen says it just right.
> Note that "OK, I'll think about it" is neither "No, you must be mistaken"
> nor "Okay, I will immediately do whatever you ask of me."  But it does need
> to be a legitimate actual "I'll think about it", seriously.
>
> The flip side is that the culture is also one where when someone says "you
> know, I'm not ok with that kind of remark", it often means "And I'd like
> you
> to think about that, in a real serious way" rather than "And I expect you
> to
> immediately change your behavior to acede to my demands."
>
> Of course, what creates that, from both ends, is a culture of trust.  Which
> I think code4lib actually has pretty a pretty decent dose of already, let's
> try to keep it that way. (In my opinion, one way we keep it that way is by
> continuing to resist becoming a formal rules-based bueurocratic
> organization, rather than a community based on social ties and good faith).
>
> Now, at some times it might really be neccesary to say "And I expect you to
> immediately stop what you're doing and do it exactly like I say."  Other
> times it's not.  But in our society as a whole, we are so trained to think
> that everything must be rules-based rather than based on good faith trust
> between people who care about each other, that we're likely to asume that
> "you know, i'm not ok with that remark" ALWAYS implies "And therefore I
> think you are an awful person, and your only hope of no longer being an
> awful person is to immediately do exactly what I say."  Rather than "And I
> expect you to think about this seriously, and maybe get back to me on what
> you think."  So if you do mean the second one when saying "you know, i'm
> not
> ok with that remark", it can be helpful to say so, to elicit the
> self-reflection you want, rather than defensiveness.  And of course, on the
> flip-side, it is obviously

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Shaun Ellis]

If you didn't intend offense, then I think the fear is in being publicly 
labeled a *ist in front of your peers when you would be more than 
willing to comply when made aware or approached in private.  Public 
humiliation like that would be a form of punishment that may be undue. 
I get what you're saying, and I think everyone on all sides of the issue 
has made excellent points.


It seems to me that any party hosting a "meat-space" event, has the 
right to implement, interpret, and enforce their own anti-harassment 
policy since they are the authority in that context.  Perhaps the one on 
GitHub can be used as boilerplate.


I think Ian's idea of the "statement of belief" or "etiquette 
guidelines" is possibly more appropriate for online spaces, since in 
some cases there is no clear or actual authority.  Even when a fora has 
an admin (or perhaps @helpers in the IRC), it adds much more 
responsibility and visibility to their role than they may have signed up 
for.  Unlike a conference, it's year round responsibility to deal with 
any issues that may arise.


I also like Jason's idea of highlighting/promoting the guidelines in 
online fora to make sure they are widely read.  For example, the wiki 
does have some basic guidelines in this area that might be worthy of 
their own "sticky" page:
http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/How_to_hack_code4lib#Don.27t_be_sexist.2Fracist.2F.2Aist 



-Shaun


On 1/27/13 4:27 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:

There's a reason the code isn't oriented around intent: which is that it's perfectly 
possibly to think one's an upstanding equitable-minded person but still make offensive 
comments that do in fact constitute harassment. This is another thing I can say 
"been there done that" about, in various contexts. I *thought* I was being 
respectful - but I wasn't. On at least one occasion I was saying something racist; on at 
least another I was demeaning a friend. Completely unintentionally, but if you 
accidentally step on someone's foot it's still your responsibility to back off and say 
sorry the instant you become aware of the fact.

(There may not be a universal objective consensus as to what is or isn't offensive, but 
nor is there a universal objective consensus as to what someone's intent is. People say 
"I didn't mean to be offensive therefore I didn't harass you" all the time, 
sometimes ingenuously, sometimes (as I did) absolutely sincerely, and how are we to tell 
the two apart? Meantime someone still got hurt.)

So a code of conduct needs to allow for unintentional harassment in a way that protects 
the person who got hurt without being unduly censorious to the person who hurt. Which 
this code does: it says ~"If you're asked to stop harassing behaviour you're 
expected to comply". Because if you didn't intend offense then you'll want to stop 
as soon as you're aware you've offended. So stop, and everyone moves on. You're not going 
to be banned for accidentally stepping on someone's foot.

If you persist or if your actions were really egregious then that's another 
matter and that's why we need to mention other possible sanctions. But these 
aren't things you're likely to do accidentally, so there's no need to be 
stressed.

Deborah

-----Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian 
Walls
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 3:24 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of 
"harassment", particularly:

"It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to gender, 
gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, 
body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or discriminatory images in public spaces 
(including online)".

I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another person 
or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not seem to be 
oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or group who feels 
offended.  People can be offended by all variety of material, and there is no universal, 
objective consensus as to what is and is not offensive.  This translates roughly to:

"I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me".

This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own behavior 
and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of others with 
sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction.
Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the wonder 
if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a way as

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

There's a reason the code isn't oriented around intent: which is that it's 
perfectly possibly to think one's an upstanding equitable-minded person but 
still make offensive comments that do in fact constitute harassment. This is 
another thing I can say "been there done that" about, in various contexts. I 
*thought* I was being respectful - but I wasn't. On at least one occasion I was 
saying something racist; on at least another I was demeaning a friend. 
Completely unintentionally, but if you accidentally step on someone's foot it's 
still your responsibility to back off and say sorry the instant you become 
aware of the fact.

(There may not be a universal objective consensus as to what is or isn't 
offensive, but nor is there a universal objective consensus as to what 
someone's intent is. People say "I didn't mean to be offensive therefore I 
didn't harass you" all the time, sometimes ingenuously, sometimes (as I did) 
absolutely sincerely, and how are we to tell the two apart? Meantime someone 
still got hurt.)

So a code of conduct needs to allow for unintentional harassment in a way that 
protects the person who got hurt without being unduly censorious to the person 
who hurt. Which this code does: it says ~"If you're asked to stop harassing 
behaviour you're expected to comply". Because if you didn't intend offense then 
you'll want to stop as soon as you're aware you've offended. So stop, and 
everyone moves on. You're not going to be banned for accidentally stepping on 
someone's foot.

If you persist or if your actions were really egregious then that's another 
matter and that's why we need to mention other possible sanctions. But these 
aren't things you're likely to do accidentally, so there's no need to be 
stressed.

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian 
Walls
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 3:24 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of 
"harassment", particularly:

"It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to 
gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability, 
physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or 
discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)".

I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another 
person or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not 
seem to be oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or 
group who feels offended.  People can be offended by all variety of material, 
and there is no universal, objective consensus as to what is and is not 
offensive.  This translates roughly to:

"I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me".

This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own behavior 
and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of others with 
sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction.
Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the wonder 
if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a way as to 
produce offense.  Very stressful, and a deterrent to participating in the 
community.

Having a section of the policy to deal with misunderstandings and inadvertent 
offense would go a long way towards alleviating my fear of banned for what 
would appear to me as no reason.


-Ian

-----Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
Fitchett, Deborah
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:32 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

When I quote ~"you're spoiling our fun" it's at the level of a paraphrase of 
one aspect of a synthesis of actual responses. It wasn't by any means the whole 
conversation; I don't recall if it was even the whole of any one person's 
response; but it was one prominent theme that came out of the response to 
people speaking up about problems with Zoia, and that prominence can be 
offputting. Mitigating this was that an even more prominent theme was "Okay, 
let's fix things". But this isn't maths and they don't cancel out:
they're both there.

This all said, I actually don't want to talk about Zoia. I don't want to sound 
like I'm stomping on people when all I want to say is that this dynamic exists 
(here, everywhere). And talking about Zoia also feels like a distraction from 
the question I asked and I think Karen was getting at, which is again: going 
forward, how do we react when we're havin

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Jason Stirnaman]

Ian +1

I like that direction and I'll sign it.

I think it would be good to offer an occasional reminder in C4L channels (e.g. 
link in the IRC greeting, mail list signup, etc.) that this is the sort of 
*community* you're entering and here's what you should expect.

Jason

Jason Stirnaman
Digital Projects Librarian
A.R. Dykes Library
University of Kansas Medical Center
913-588-7319


From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Ian Walls 
[iwa...@library.umass.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:46 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

+1

Perhaps, instead of a policy document (which is inherently rules-based), we
have a statement of belief and a pledge to stand by it (which is more of a
good-faith social contract).  Those of us who believe in it could sign it in
some way, perhaps through GitHub  This way we'd still have a document to
point people at, but we wouldn't have to worry about coding up rules that
work for every conceivable situation.

A basic statement of belief:

We don't believe that people should harm each other.

The basic situations we'd need to cover are:

a) I am harmed by someone - a pledge to speak up, either to the person
directly or to someone else in the community
b) someone is harmed by me - a pledge to review my behavior and take
appropriate action (apologize, or explain why I feel the behavior is
justified)
c) someone is harmed by someone else - a pledge to be willing to listen to
both parties, and form our opinions of the situation in light of the
statement of belief

Do you all think something like this would work for the whole community?


-Ian

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:25 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

>  The best way, in my mind,
is to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok
with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll
think about that."

I think that's a really good to try to create, Karen says it just right.
Note that "OK, I'll think about it" is neither "No, you must be mistaken"
nor "Okay, I will immediately do whatever you ask of me."  But it does need
to be a legitimate actual "I'll think about it", seriously.

The flip side is that the culture is also one where when someone says "you
know, I'm not ok with that kind of remark", it often means "And I'd like you
to think about that, in a real serious way" rather than "And I expect you to
immediately change your behavior to acede to my demands."

Of course, what creates that, from both ends, is a culture of trust.  Which
I think code4lib actually has pretty a pretty decent dose of already, let's
try to keep it that way. (In my opinion, one way we keep it that way is by
continuing to resist becoming a formal rules-based bueurocratic
organization, rather than a community based on social ties and good faith).

Now, at some times it might really be neccesary to say "And I expect you to
immediately stop what you're doing and do it exactly like I say."  Other
times it's not.  But in our society as a whole, we are so trained to think
that everything must be rules-based rather than based on good faith trust
between people who care about each other, that we're likely to asume that
"you know, i'm not ok with that remark" ALWAYS implies "And therefore I
think you are an awful person, and your only hope of no longer being an
awful person is to immediately do exactly what I say."  Rather than "And I
expect you to think about this seriously, and maybe get back to me on what
you think."  So if you do mean the second one when saying "you know, i'm not
ok with that remark", it can be helpful to say so, to elicit the
self-reflection you want, rather than defensiveness.  And of course, on the
flip-side, it is obviously helpful if you can always respond to "you know,
i'm really not okay with that"!
  with reflection, rather than defensiveness.
____
From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen Coyle
[li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:22 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>
>
> To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used
> in the policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing
> opinions can make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop
> sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ian Walls]

+1

Perhaps, instead of a policy document (which is inherently rules-based), we
have a statement of belief and a pledge to stand by it (which is more of a
good-faith social contract).  Those of us who believe in it could sign it in
some way, perhaps through GitHub  This way we'd still have a document to
point people at, but we wouldn't have to worry about coding up rules that
work for every conceivable situation.

A basic statement of belief:

We don't believe that people should harm each other.

The basic situations we'd need to cover are:

a) I am harmed by someone - a pledge to speak up, either to the person
directly or to someone else in the community
b) someone is harmed by me - a pledge to review my behavior and take
appropriate action (apologize, or explain why I feel the behavior is
justified)
c) someone is harmed by someone else - a pledge to be willing to listen to
both parties, and form our opinions of the situation in light of the
statement of belief

Do you all think something like this would work for the whole community?


-Ian

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:25 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

>  The best way, in my mind,
is to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok
with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll
think about that." 

I think that's a really good to try to create, Karen says it just right.
Note that "OK, I'll think about it" is neither "No, you must be mistaken"
nor "Okay, I will immediately do whatever you ask of me."  But it does need
to be a legitimate actual "I'll think about it", seriously. 

The flip side is that the culture is also one where when someone says "you
know, I'm not ok with that kind of remark", it often means "And I'd like you
to think about that, in a real serious way" rather than "And I expect you to
immediately change your behavior to acede to my demands."

Of course, what creates that, from both ends, is a culture of trust.  Which
I think code4lib actually has pretty a pretty decent dose of already, let's
try to keep it that way. (In my opinion, one way we keep it that way is by
continuing to resist becoming a formal rules-based bueurocratic
organization, rather than a community based on social ties and good faith). 

Now, at some times it might really be neccesary to say "And I expect you to
immediately stop what you're doing and do it exactly like I say."  Other
times it's not.  But in our society as a whole, we are so trained to think
that everything must be rules-based rather than based on good faith trust
between people who care about each other, that we're likely to asume that
"you know, i'm not ok with that remark" ALWAYS implies "And therefore I
think you are an awful person, and your only hope of no longer being an
awful person is to immediately do exactly what I say."  Rather than "And I
expect you to think about this seriously, and maybe get back to me on what
you think."  So if you do mean the second one when saying "you know, i'm not
ok with that remark", it can be helpful to say so, to elicit the
self-reflection you want, rather than defensiveness.  And of course, on the
flip-side, it is obviously helpful if you can always respond to "you know,
i'm really not okay with that"!
  with reflection, rather than defensiveness. 
____________
From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen Coyle
[li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:22 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>
>
> To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used 
> in the policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing 
> opinions can make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop 
> sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I be banned?

I can't come up with a word for it that is unambiguous, but I can propose a
scenario. Imagine a room at a conference full of people -- and that there
are only a few people of color. A speaker gets up and shows or says
something racist. It may be light-hearted in nature, but the people of color
in that almost-all-white audience feel
uncomfortable/insulted/discriminated against.

I had a great example that I can no longer find -- I think it came through
on Twitter. It showed a fake ad with an image of border patrol agents
rounding up "illegal aliens" in the desert, and used the ad copy:
"We can take care of all of your p

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Jonathan Rochkind]

>  The best way, in my mind, 
is to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not 
ok with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, 
I'll think about that." 

I think that's a really good to try to create, Karen says it just right.  Note 
that "OK, I'll think about it" is neither "No, you must be mistaken" nor "Okay, 
I will immediately do whatever you ask of me."  But it does need to be a 
legitimate actual "I'll think about it", seriously. 

The flip side is that the culture is also one where when someone says "you 
know, I'm not ok with that kind of remark", it often means "And I'd like you to 
think about that, in a real serious way" rather than "And I expect you to 
immediately change your behavior to acede to my demands."

Of course, what creates that, from both ends, is a culture of trust.  Which I 
think code4lib actually has pretty a pretty decent dose of already, let's try 
to keep it that way. (In my opinion, one way we keep it that way is by 
continuing to resist becoming a formal rules-based bueurocratic organization, 
rather than a community based on social ties and good faith). 

Now, at some times it might really be neccesary to say "And I expect you to 
immediately stop what you're doing and do it exactly like I say."  Other times 
it's not.  But in our society as a whole, we are so trained to think that 
everything must be rules-based rather than based on good faith trust between 
people who care about each other, that we're likely to asume that "you know, 
i'm not ok with that remark" ALWAYS implies "And therefore I think you are an 
awful person, and your only hope of no longer being an awful person is to 
immediately do exactly what I say."  Rather than "And I expect you to think 
about this seriously, and maybe get back to me on what you think."  So if you 
do mean the second one when saying "you know, i'm not ok with that remark", it 
can be helpful to say so, to elicit the self-reflection you want, rather than 
defensiveness.  And of course, on the flip-side, it is obviously helpful if you 
can always respond to "you know, i'm really not okay with that"!
  with reflection, rather than defensiveness. 
________________
From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen Coyle 
[li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:22 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>
>
> To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used
> in the policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing
> opinions can make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop
> sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I be banned?

I can't come up with a word for it that is unambiguous, but I can
propose a scenario. Imagine a room at a conference full of people -- and
that there are only a few people of color. A speaker gets up and shows
or says something racist. It may be light-hearted in nature, but the
people of color in that almost-all-white audience feel
uncomfortable/insulted/discriminated against.

I had a great example that I can no longer find -- I think it came
through on Twitter. It showed a fake ad with an image of border patrol
agents rounding up "illegal aliens" in the desert, and used the ad copy:
"We can take care of all of your papers" as the ad line for a business
computing company. It's a "joke" that you can almost imagine someone
actually doing. Any latinos in the audience would be within their rights
of jumping up and shouting at the speaker, but in fact sexism and racism
work precisely because people struggling for equal status are least
likely to gain that status if they speak up against the status quo. What
I think we want to change is the social acceptance of speaking up.

There's a difference between an intellectual disagreement (I think the
earth is round/I think the earth is flat) and insulting who a person is
as a person. The various "*isms* (sexism, racism, homophobia) have a
demeaning nature, and there is an inherent lowering of status of the
targeted group. Booth babes at professional conferences are demeaning to
women because they present women as non-professional sex objects, and
that view generally lowers the social and intellectual status of women
in the eyes of attendees, including the professional women who are
attending. Because of this, many conferences now ban booth babes. No
conference has banned discussion of alternate views of the universe.

It's hard to find a balance between being conscious of other peoples'
sensibilities and crea

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

I do not regard threats of violence as "humor," particularly in the
context of discussing a proposal where vaguely defined "offensive"
speech would be deemed punishable. Such policies seldom allow "I was
only kidding" excuses for jokes, yet a suggestion about beating people
to a pulp is permissible? That's a serious double standard.

I do not need your permission to post to this thread or this list, Becky
Yoose.

On 1/25/13 11:01 AM, Becky Yoose wrote:
> You know folks...
> 
> ...when it gets to the point where no one recognized that Ranti's
> comment about beating up someone might be an exaggeration - an attempt
> a humor, if you will -  to ask a real question (who do I report to if
> I'm being harassed at the conference)...
> 
> and
> 
> ... if you had to explain that beating a person up will need to
> involve the cops...
> 
> and
> 
> ... when multiple people posted multiple times, only to ask themselves
> why they're posting in the first place...
> 
> and
> 
> ... when folks keep talking and talking and nothing seems to happen
> with all this talking...
> 
> and
> 
> ... people rather post here and keep talking than actually do things,
> like, for example, someone going to the github repo and editing the
> anti-harassment policy or someone opening an issue/thread about
> defining terms...
> 
> ... it might be a good time to stop posting to this thread.



-- 
Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
http://www.garymcgath.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Jason Griffey]

Karen, as is her habit, speaks great wisdom. 

Jason

On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used in the 
>> policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing opinions can 
>> make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop sharing what may be 
>> a dissenting opinion, should I be banned?
> 
> I can't come up with a word for it that is unambiguous, but I can propose a 
> scenario. Imagine a room at a conference full of people -- and that there are 
> only a few people of color. A speaker gets up and shows or says something 
> racist. It may be light-hearted in nature, but the people of color in that 
> almost-all-white audience feel uncomfortable/insulted/discriminated 
> against.
> 
> I had a great example that I can no longer find -- I think it came through on 
> Twitter. It showed a fake ad with an image of border patrol agents rounding 
> up "illegal aliens" in the desert, and used the ad copy: "We can take care of 
> all of your papers" as the ad line for a business computing company. It's a 
> "joke" that you can almost imagine someone actually doing. Any latinos in the 
> audience would be within their rights of jumping up and shouting at the 
> speaker, but in fact sexism and racism work precisely because people 
> struggling for equal status are least likely to gain that status if they 
> speak up against the status quo. What I think we want to change is the social 
> acceptance of speaking up.
> 
> There's a difference between an intellectual disagreement (I think the earth 
> is round/I think the earth is flat) and insulting who a person is as a 
> person. The various "*isms* (sexism, racism, homophobia) have a demeaning 
> nature, and there is an inherent lowering of status of the targeted group. 
> Booth babes at professional conferences are demeaning to women because they 
> present women as non-professional sex objects, and that view generally lowers 
> the social and intellectual status of women in the eyes of attendees, 
> including the professional women who are attending. Because of this, many 
> conferences now ban booth babes. No conference has banned discussion of 
> alternate views of the universe.
> 
> It's hard to find a balance between being conscious of other peoples' 
> sensibilities and creating a chilling effect. The best way, in my mind, is to 
> somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok with 
> that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll think 
> about that." If, however, every "I'm not ok" becomes a battle, then we aren't 
> doing it right. The reason why it shouldn't be a battle is that there is no 
> absolute right or wrong. If someone tells you "You're standing too close" 
> then you know you've violated a personal space limit that is specific to that 
> person. You don't know why. But there's nothing to argue about -- it's how 
> that person feels. All you have to do is listen, and be considerate. 
> Eventually we all learn about each other. It's an interaction, not an 
> interdiction.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
>> 
>> It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy.  If you want to see 
>> something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and change it. 
>> :)
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
>>> Shaun Ellis
>>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
>>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
>>> 
>>>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>>>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>>>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>>>> rather than in the abstract?
>>> 
>>> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a set 
>>> of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more uneasy 
>>> about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle 
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there 
>>> is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of 
>>> behavior it is meant to prevent.
>>> 
>>> I

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Karen Coyle]

On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:



To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used 
in the policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing 
opinions can make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop 
sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I be banned?


I can't come up with a word for it that is unambiguous, but I can 
propose a scenario. Imagine a room at a conference full of people -- and 
that there are only a few people of color. A speaker gets up and shows 
or says something racist. It may be light-hearted in nature, but the 
people of color in that almost-all-white audience feel 
uncomfortable/insulted/discriminated against.


I had a great example that I can no longer find -- I think it came 
through on Twitter. It showed a fake ad with an image of border patrol 
agents rounding up "illegal aliens" in the desert, and used the ad copy: 
"We can take care of all of your papers" as the ad line for a business 
computing company. It's a "joke" that you can almost imagine someone 
actually doing. Any latinos in the audience would be within their rights 
of jumping up and shouting at the speaker, but in fact sexism and racism 
work precisely because people struggling for equal status are least 
likely to gain that status if they speak up against the status quo. What 
I think we want to change is the social acceptance of speaking up.


There's a difference between an intellectual disagreement (I think the 
earth is round/I think the earth is flat) and insulting who a person is 
as a person. The various "*isms* (sexism, racism, homophobia) have a 
demeaning nature, and there is an inherent lowering of status of the 
targeted group. Booth babes at professional conferences are demeaning to 
women because they present women as non-professional sex objects, and 
that view generally lowers the social and intellectual status of women 
in the eyes of attendees, including the professional women who are 
attending. Because of this, many conferences now ban booth babes. No 
conference has banned discussion of alternate views of the universe.


It's hard to find a balance between being conscious of other peoples' 
sensibilities and creating a chilling effect. The best way, in my mind, 
is to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not 
ok with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, 
I'll think about that." If, however, every "I'm not ok" becomes a 
battle, then we aren't doing it right. The reason why it shouldn't be a 
battle is that there is no absolute right or wrong. If someone tells you 
"You're standing too close" then you know you've violated a personal 
space limit that is specific to that person. You don't know why. But 
there's nothing to argue about -- it's how that person feels. All you 
have to do is listen, and be considerate. Eventually we all learn about 
each other. It's an interaction, not an interdiction.


kc




It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy.  If you want to 
see something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and 
change it. :)





-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Shaun Ellis

Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)


I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
rather than in the abstract?



I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a 
set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more 
uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon 
way to handle it.


I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems 
there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what 
type of behavior it is meant to prevent.


I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub 
issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get 
resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the 
forks, or "no policy at all".


Does that sound reasonable?

--
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University 
Library




P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be 
confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use,
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If 
you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together 
with all attachments from your system."







--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Cary Gordon]

This is exactly my point.

If anyone interested could got onto github and make their opinion
known there, we could get this done.

Some folks won't like it, and that is to be expected.

Some brave soul should set a cutoff date.

Cary

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:
> You know folks...
>
> ...when it gets to the point where no one recognized that Ranti's
> comment about beating up someone might be an exaggeration - an attempt
> a humor, if you will -  to ask a real question (who do I report to if
> I'm being harassed at the conference)...
>
> and
>
> ... if you had to explain that beating a person up will need to
> involve the cops...
>
> and
>
> ... when multiple people posted multiple times, only to ask themselves
> why they're posting in the first place...
>
> and
>
> ... when folks keep talking and talking and nothing seems to happen
> with all this talking...
>
> and
>
> ... people rather post here and keep talking than actually do things,
> like, for example, someone going to the github repo and editing the
> anti-harassment policy or someone opening an issue/thread about
> defining terms...
>
> ... it might be a good time to stop posting to this thread.
>
> Here is your raw MARC record:
> 01105nmm  2200277Ia450001001300030006000130050017000190080041000
> 36040001300077096001300090049000900103245005200112256001900164260005
> 9001835160042002425380800028453800760036452900440521001300469520
> 01530048265000240063565000190065650001600678710003500694856009800729
> ^^ocm35003642^^OCoLC^^190108.0^^960628s1995caud
>eng d^^  ^_aFQM^_cFQM^^  ^_aINTERNET^^ ^_a^^00^_aOphthalm
> ic Anesthesia Society^_h[computer file].^^  ^_aComputer data.^^ ^_aS
> an Diego, CA :^_bOphthalmic Anesthesia Society,^_c1995.^^  ^_aHtml t
> ext andimages in GIF and JPeg.^^  ^_aSystem requirements: Html brows
> er, JPeg compatiblebrowser or image viewer.^^  ^_aMode of access: In
> ternet. Host: www.iea.com/Mddans/OAS/oasM-vhomepage.html^^  ^_aTitle
>  from title screen.^^  ^_aMedical.^^ ^_aHome page of the Ophthalmic
> Anesthesia Society with articles, references, e-mailaddresses of mem
> bers, pictures and ophthalmic anesthesia resources.^^2^_aSocieties,
> Medical.^^ 2^_aOphthalmology.^^ 2^_aAnesthesia.^^2 ^_aOphthalmic Ane
> sthesiaSociety.^^7^_uhttp://www.iea.com/Mddans/OAS/oasMvhomepage.htm
> l^_2http^_zOphthalmic Anesthesia Society home page^^^]01297nms
>
>
> Enjoy your weekend,
> Becky



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ross Singer]

On Jan 25, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:
> Here is your raw MARC record:
> 01105nmm  2200277Ia450001001300030006000130050017000190080041000
> 36040001300077096001300090049000900103245005200112256001900164260005
> 9001835160042002425380800028453800760036452900440521001300469520
> 01530048265000240063565000190065650001600678710003500694856009800729
> ^^ocm35003642^^OCoLC^^190108.0^^960628s1995caud
>   eng d^^  ^_aFQM^_cFQM^^  ^_aINTERNET^^ ^_a^^00^_aOphthalm
> ic Anesthesia Society^_h[computer file].^^  ^_aComputer data.^^ ^_aS
> an Diego, CA :^_bOphthalmic Anesthesia Society,^_c1995.^^  ^_aHtml t
> ext andimages in GIF and JPeg.^^  ^_aSystem requirements: Html brows
> er, JPeg compatiblebrowser or image viewer.^^  ^_aMode of access: In
> ternet. Host: www.iea.com/Mddans/OAS/oasM-vhomepage.html^^  ^_aTitle
> from title screen.^^  ^_aMedical.^^ ^_aHome page of the Ophthalmic
> Anesthesia Society with articles, references, e-mailaddresses of mem
> bers, pictures and ophthalmic anesthesia resources.^^2^_aSocieties,
> Medical.^^ 2^_aOphthalmology.^^ 2^_aAnesthesia.^^2 ^_aOphthalmic Ane
> sthesiaSociety.^^7^_uhttp://www.iea.com/Mddans/OAS/oasMvhomepage.htm
> l^_2http^_zOphthalmic Anesthesia Society home page^^^]01297nms

A+
NICE DETAIL!  WOULD COPY CATALOG FROM AGAIN!

-Ross.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Matt McCollow]

I think there's also both an implied targeting of a person, and repetitiveness 
or persistence with the word "harassment" that's not at all captured in that 
definition. The definition Ian quoted is so broad I think most contemporary 
network sitcoms would qualify as "harassment".

Matt McCollow
Programmer
Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship, McMaster University

On 2013-01-25, at 10:17 AM, Gary McGath wrote:

> I haven't been following the discussion slowly till someone proposed
> violence as a response to unspecified harassment. Now I'm worried.
> 
> The policy which Ian quotes is based on the idea that no one must be
> offended, which is a deadly opposite to academic freedom and open
> discussion. What is "offensive"? With a policy like that, people must
> weigh every word they say against the possibility that someone somewhere
> might feel offended by it.
> 
> For example, I don't think there is any good evidence for the existence
> of a deity. My saying just that could offend a lot of religious people.
> If I follow the policy, I must not express that view in any public space
> or online forum, including this one. I am already in violation of the
> policy; kick me out.
> 
> "Non-verbal expressions" are included. Even a disapproving look could be
> considered "harassment."
> 
> There can't be any free give and take of ideas without the possibility
> that someone will be offended. Too many people, especially in the
> academic world, prefer a nice quiet environment where no one says
> anything troubling to a free and open exchange of ideas. It isn't far
> from there to banning "offensive" books from libraries.
> 
> On 1/25/13 9:23 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
>> My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of
>> "harassment", particularly:
>> 
>> "It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to
>> gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability,
>> physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or
>> discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)".
>> 
>> I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another
>> person or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not
>> seem to be oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or
>> group who feels offended.  People can be offended by all variety of
>> material, and there is no universal, objective consensus as to what is and
>> is not offensive.  This translates roughly to:
>> 
>> "I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me".
>> 
>> This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own
>> behavior and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of
>> others with sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction.
>> Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the
>> wonder if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a
>> way as to produce offense.  Very stressful, and a deterrent to participating
>> in the community.
>> 
>> Having a section of the policy to deal with misunderstandings and
>> inadvertent offense would go a long way towards alleviating my fear of
>> banned for what would appear to me as no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
> http://www.garymcgath.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Becky Yoose]

You know folks...

...when it gets to the point where no one recognized that Ranti's
comment about beating up someone might be an exaggeration - an attempt
a humor, if you will -  to ask a real question (who do I report to if
I'm being harassed at the conference)...

and

... if you had to explain that beating a person up will need to
involve the cops...

and

... when multiple people posted multiple times, only to ask themselves
why they're posting in the first place...

and

... when folks keep talking and talking and nothing seems to happen
with all this talking...

and

... people rather post here and keep talking than actually do things,
like, for example, someone going to the github repo and editing the
anti-harassment policy or someone opening an issue/thread about
defining terms...

... it might be a good time to stop posting to this thread.

Here is your raw MARC record:
01105nmm  2200277Ia450001001300030006000130050017000190080041000
36040001300077096001300090049000900103245005200112256001900164260005
9001835160042002425380800028453800760036452900440521001300469520
01530048265000240063565000190065650001600678710003500694856009800729
^^ocm35003642^^OCoLC^^190108.0^^960628s1995caud
   eng d^^  ^_aFQM^_cFQM^^  ^_aINTERNET^^ ^_a^^00^_aOphthalm
ic Anesthesia Society^_h[computer file].^^  ^_aComputer data.^^ ^_aS
an Diego, CA :^_bOphthalmic Anesthesia Society,^_c1995.^^  ^_aHtml t
ext andimages in GIF and JPeg.^^  ^_aSystem requirements: Html brows
er, JPeg compatiblebrowser or image viewer.^^  ^_aMode of access: In
ternet. Host: www.iea.com/Mddans/OAS/oasM-vhomepage.html^^  ^_aTitle
 from title screen.^^  ^_aMedical.^^ ^_aHome page of the Ophthalmic
Anesthesia Society with articles, references, e-mailaddresses of mem
bers, pictures and ophthalmic anesthesia resources.^^2^_aSocieties,
Medical.^^ 2^_aOphthalmology.^^ 2^_aAnesthesia.^^2 ^_aOphthalmic Ane
sthesiaSociety.^^7^_uhttp://www.iea.com/Mddans/OAS/oasMvhomepage.htm
l^_2http^_zOphthalmic Anesthesia Society home page^^^]01297nms


Enjoy your weekend,
Becky

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Cary Gordon]

By my chart, we are now officially sinking into the slough of semantic despond.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Gary McGath  wrote:
> I haven't been following the discussion slowly till someone proposed
> violence as a response to unspecified harassment. Now I'm worried.
>
> The policy which Ian quotes is based on the idea that no one must be
> offended, which is a deadly opposite to academic freedom and open
> discussion. What is "offensive"? With a policy like that, people must
> weigh every word they say against the possibility that someone somewhere
> might feel offended by it.
>
> For example, I don't think there is any good evidence for the existence
> of a deity. My saying just that could offend a lot of religious people.
> If I follow the policy, I must not express that view in any public space
> or online forum, including this one. I am already in violation of the
> policy; kick me out.
>
> "Non-verbal expressions" are included. Even a disapproving look could be
> considered "harassment."
>
> There can't be any free give and take of ideas without the possibility
> that someone will be offended. Too many people, especially in the
> academic world, prefer a nice quiet environment where no one says
> anything troubling to a free and open exchange of ideas. It isn't far
> from there to banning "offensive" books from libraries.
>
> On 1/25/13 9:23 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
>> My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of
>> "harassment", particularly:
>>
>> "It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to
>> gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability,
>> physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or
>> discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)".
>>
>> I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another
>> person or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not
>> seem to be oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or
>> group who feels offended.  People can be offended by all variety of
>> material, and there is no universal, objective consensus as to what is and
>> is not offensive.  This translates roughly to:
>>
>> "I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me".
>>
>> This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own
>> behavior and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of
>> others with sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction.
>> Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the
>> wonder if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a
>> way as to produce offense.  Very stressful, and a deterrent to participating
>> in the community.
>>
>> Having a section of the policy to deal with misunderstandings and
>> inadvertent offense would go a long way towards alleviating my fear of
>> banned for what would appear to me as no reason.
>
>
>
> --
> Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
> http://www.garymcgath.com



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

I haven't been following the discussion slowly till someone proposed
violence as a response to unspecified harassment. Now I'm worried.

The policy which Ian quotes is based on the idea that no one must be
offended, which is a deadly opposite to academic freedom and open
discussion. What is "offensive"? With a policy like that, people must
weigh every word they say against the possibility that someone somewhere
might feel offended by it.

For example, I don't think there is any good evidence for the existence
of a deity. My saying just that could offend a lot of religious people.
If I follow the policy, I must not express that view in any public space
or online forum, including this one. I am already in violation of the
policy; kick me out.

"Non-verbal expressions" are included. Even a disapproving look could be
considered "harassment."

There can't be any free give and take of ideas without the possibility
that someone will be offended. Too many people, especially in the
academic world, prefer a nice quiet environment where no one says
anything troubling to a free and open exchange of ideas. It isn't far
from there to banning "offensive" books from libraries.

On 1/25/13 9:23 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
> My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of
> "harassment", particularly:
> 
> "It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to
> gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability,
> physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or
> discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)".
> 
> I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another
> person or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not
> seem to be oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or
> group who feels offended.  People can be offended by all variety of
> material, and there is no universal, objective consensus as to what is and
> is not offensive.  This translates roughly to:
> 
> "I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me".
> 
> This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own
> behavior and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of
> others with sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction.
> Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the
> wonder if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a
> way as to produce offense.  Very stressful, and a deterrent to participating
> in the community.
> 
> Having a section of the policy to deal with misunderstandings and
> inadvertent offense would go a long way towards alleviating my fear of
> banned for what would appear to me as no reason.



-- 
Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
http://www.garymcgath.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Michael B. Klein]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Shaun Ellis  wrote:

>
> But deciding to situations in context without a set of guidelines is
> simply another kind of policy.


In other words, "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If
you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice," amirite?

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ian Walls]

My concern over the anti-harassment policy is part of the definition of
"harassment", particularly:

"It includes offensive verbal comments or non-verbal expressions related to
gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, disability,
physical appearance, body size, race, age, religious beliefs, sexual or
discriminatory images in public spaces (including online)".

I'm sure that no one in the community would intentionally "threaten another
person or group, or produce an unsafe environment", but the policy does not
seem to be oriented around intent, but rather the reaction of the person or
group who feels offended.  People can be offended by all variety of
material, and there is no universal, objective consensus as to what is and
is not offensive.  This translates roughly to:

"I am offended by something you said, therefore you harassed me".

This makes me uncomfortable, because even though I can control my own
behavior and treat others with respect, I cannot anticipate the reactions of
others with sufficient accuracy to compensate for the risk of the sanction.
Therefore for any interaction in Code4Lib under this policy, I have the
wonder if something I've said may be misinterpreted or read into in such a
way as to produce offense.  Very stressful, and a deterrent to participating
in the community.

Having a section of the policy to deal with misunderstandings and
inadvertent offense would go a long way towards alleviating my fear of
banned for what would appear to me as no reason.


-Ian

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Fitchett, Deborah
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:32 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

When I quote ~"you're spoiling our fun" it's at the level of a paraphrase of
one aspect of a synthesis of actual responses. It wasn't by any means the
whole conversation; I don't recall if it was even the whole of any one
person's response; but it was one prominent theme that came out of the
response to people speaking up about problems with Zoia, and that prominence
can be offputting. Mitigating this was that an even more prominent theme was
"Okay, let's fix things". But this isn't maths and they don't cancel out:
they're both there.

This all said, I actually don't want to talk about Zoia. I don't want to
sound like I'm stomping on people when all I want to say is that this
dynamic exists (here, everywhere). And talking about Zoia also feels like a
distraction from the question I asked and I think Karen was getting at,
which is again: going forward, how do we react when we're having fun and
we're made aware that someone else is being hurt by the thing we find fun?

I doubt we need a standard operating procedure but it's something really
worth thinking about in advance of when it happens. Because it's hard, when
that happens (having been there) : one wants to be a good person, but one
also wants to have fun. And then there's the ego's self-defense mechanism: a
good person wouldn't have fun doing something that hurts someone, and I'm a
good person, so since I was having fun it can't really have hurt anyone.
Yeah, bad logic, but like I said I've been there and it can take logic a
long time to beat the ego over that one if you haven't prepared.

Having a code of conduct is fantastic. But if we don't have *at least* vague
brainstormy ideas of how we'll react to it when a) Your Best Friend says
Complete Stranger is harassing zir; b) YBF says YotherBF is harassing zir;
c) CS says YBF is harassing zir; d) CS says you're harassing zir; etc --
then it's just false security, has the same potential for denial or coverups
as if there were no such code, and in that case means all the additional
pain of broken trust.

And for those that think that this is a fantastic group so it's just a waste
of time planning for a non-existent situation -- well, I still think it was
a little bit there with Zoia (the outline of the pattern if nothing else);
but even if you don't agree with that, this is a transferable skill: if we
come up with ideas of how we can react here, we can then also use those if
similar situations come up in other aspects of our lives.

Deborah 

-----Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross
Singer
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 3:33 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Fitchett, Deborah"
 wrote:

> People did raise specific issues with Zoia which can reasonably be fit
into the code of conduct's definition of harassment (many of which have
therefore been addressed) so saying "no one has spo

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[MJ Ray]

Shaun Ellis 
> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub 
> issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get 
> resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the 
> forks, or "no policy at all".
> 
> Does that sound reasonable?

No - for a whole shedload of reasons, but I'll just mention one:
GitHub demands everyone's full legal name, which some minority members
just won't be comfortable with giving.  For example, if they are
opposing some aspect of the policy or may risk their livelihood (does
the US military still do Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell?).

I'd also like to suggest Crowd-Wise
http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/crowd-wise as a possible way to
vote on such things without a majority dismissing a minority
almost every single time.

A quick summary: gather all ideas (including option 0 (do nothing) if
possible), carry out a de Borda (preference) voting round 1,
merge/amend/consolidate ideas to try to get consensus or at least an
overwhelming majority, then voting round 2 if needed.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

When I quote ~"you're spoiling our fun" it's at the level of a paraphrase of 
one aspect of a synthesis of actual responses. It wasn't by any means the whole 
conversation; I don't recall if it was even the whole of any one person's 
response; but it was one prominent theme that came out of the response to 
people speaking up about problems with Zoia, and that prominence can be 
offputting. Mitigating this was that an even more prominent theme was "Okay, 
let's fix things". But this isn't maths and they don't cancel out: they're both 
there.

This all said, I actually don't want to talk about Zoia. I don't want to sound 
like I'm stomping on people when all I want to say is that this dynamic exists 
(here, everywhere). And talking about Zoia also feels like a distraction from 
the question I asked and I think Karen was getting at, which is again: going 
forward, how do we react when we're having fun and we're made aware that 
someone else is being hurt by the thing we find fun?

I doubt we need a standard operating procedure but it's something really worth 
thinking about in advance of when it happens. Because it's hard, when that 
happens (having been there) : one wants to be a good person, but one also wants 
to have fun. And then there's the ego's self-defense mechanism: a good person 
wouldn't have fun doing something that hurts someone, and I'm a good person, so 
since I was having fun it can't really have hurt anyone. Yeah, bad logic, but 
like I said I've been there and it can take logic a long time to beat the ego 
over that one if you haven't prepared.

Having a code of conduct is fantastic. But if we don't have *at least* vague 
brainstormy ideas of how we'll react to it when a) Your Best Friend says 
Complete Stranger is harassing zir; b) YBF says YotherBF is harassing zir; c) 
CS says YBF is harassing zir; d) CS says you're harassing zir; etc -- then it's 
just false security, has the same potential for denial or coverups as if there 
were no such code, and in that case means all the additional pain of broken 
trust.

And for those that think that this is a fantastic group so it's just a waste of 
time planning for a non-existent situation -- well, I still think it was a 
little bit there with Zoia (the outline of the pattern if nothing else); but 
even if you don't agree with that, this is a transferable skill: if we come up 
with ideas of how we can react here, we can then also use those if similar 
situations come up in other aspects of our lives.

Deborah 

-Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross 
Singer
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 3:33 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Fitchett, Deborah" 
 wrote:

> People did raise specific issues with Zoia which can reasonably be fit into 
> the code of conduct's definition of harassment (many of which have therefore 
> been addressed) so saying "no one has spoken up" seems strange. People did 
> speak up. Some people listened and did something about it; some people 
> objected ~"You're spoiling our fun" and this kind of reaction is what has the 
> potential to make some people nervous about speaking up, because no-one wants 
> to spoil people's fun.

When we're talking about "you're spoiling our fun", are we talking about zoia's 
offensive plugins?

I don't think I've seen anybody leap to the defense of @mf or @forecast (or any 
of the others mentioned).  Some people have poured some of their craft beers on 
the ground for their fallen plugins, but I don't think anybody's actually come 
out and actively objected to cleaning up the bot's language.  In fact, on the 
contrary, I think people have been pretty proactive about looking for the 
things that need to be cleaned up and trying to archive what's there before 
cleansing.

I am not sure a defense of zoia is the same thing as a defense of @habla or 
@icp (as two examples).

If we're not talking about zoia anymore, then apologies, -Ross.



P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential 
and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, 
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender 
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all 
attachments from your system."

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ross Singer]

On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Fitchett, Deborah" 
 wrote:

> People did raise specific issues with Zoia which can reasonably be fit into 
> the code of conduct's definition of harassment (many of which have therefore 
> been addressed) so saying "no one has spoken up" seems strange. People did 
> speak up. Some people listened and did something about it; some people 
> objected ~"You're spoiling our fun" and this kind of reaction is what has the 
> potential to make some people nervous about speaking up, because no-one wants 
> to spoil people's fun.

When we're talking about "you're spoiling our fun", are we talking about zoia's 
offensive plugins?

I don't think I've seen anybody leap to the defense of @mf or @forecast (or any 
of the others mentioned).  Some people have poured some of their craft beers on 
the ground for their fallen plugins, but I don't think anybody's actually come 
out and actively objected to cleaning up the bot's language.  In fact, on the 
contrary, I think people have been pretty proactive about looking for the 
things that need to be cleaned up and trying to archive what's there before 
cleansing.

I am not sure a defense of zoia is the same thing as a defense of @habla or 
@icp (as two examples).

If we're not talking about zoia anymore, then apologies,
-Ross.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

People did raise specific issues with Zoia which can reasonably be fit into the 
code of conduct's definition of harassment (many of which have therefore been 
addressed) so saying "no one has spoken up" seems strange. People did speak up. 
Some people listened and did something about it; some people objected ~"You're 
spoiling our fun" and this kind of reaction is what has the potential to make 
some people nervous about speaking up, because no-one wants to spoil people's 
fun.

This is what I think Karen was pointing out (in general if I've interpreted 
this instance beyond her intent) - that if we care enough in the abstract to 
make a code of conduct then we should also care enough in the abstract to 
consider how, practically, we're going to help people feel willing to speak up?

Note before anyone gets nervous I'm *not* leaping to censorship as a solution. 
I'm asking:  if I'm having fun doing X, and a friend of mine says that actually 
something about X is making them uncomfortable-as-in-harassed, how should I 
(and by extension the rest of the community) react in order to resolve the 
situation without increasing my friend's discomfort?


[I really hope you can understand the difference between me wanting to be 
"comfortable in an environment where no-one's harassing me" and wanting to be 
"comfortable in an environment where I'm being fed grapes, massaged with 
vanilla oil, and assured that all the lurkers support me in email". I'm not 
agitating for the word to be added to the policy if it's not already there 
because this isn't a court of law and precise diction just doesn't matter, but 
by the same token if it *were* there then I'm pretty sure that, given the 
context of it being an anti-harassment policy, any reasonable person would 
interpret it to mean the former rather than the latter.  (And by the same token 
again, I'm going to drop this at this point because it doesn't matter compared 
to the main discussion above.)]

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Shaun 
Ellis
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 12:09 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

> --And how did we get from "The code of conduct is sufficient so let's not 
> overthink things!" to "Wait, we need to implement procedures to vote on the 
> code of conduct!" anyway??
>

We got there because you replied that there was an ongoing debate about whether 
the policy was sufficient enough to deal with any discomfort folks might have 
about zoia.  I still think the policy is sufficient, as it's meant to be used 
when dealing with incidents in context, not in the abstract.  To date, no one 
has spoken up about an incident where they were harassed by zoia.  Unless 
there's something I missed, it has all been speculation that someone might be 
harassed in the future. 
According to the anti-harassment policy, if you read it, no action should be 
taken.

To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used in the 
policy because I wouldn't support it being there.  Differing opinions can make 
people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop sharing what may be a 
dissenting opinion, should I be banned?

It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy.  If you want to see 
something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and change it. :)


>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
> Of Shaun Ellis
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
>
>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even 
>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in 
>> context, rather than in the abstract?
>>
>
> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a set of 
> guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more uneasy about 
> ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle it.
>
> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there 
> is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of 
> behavior it is meant to prevent.
>
> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues 
> and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get resolved end up 
> in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy at 
> all".
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
>
> --
> Sha

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Cary Gordon]

It can't have officers, either.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Gary McGath  wrote:
> A non-organization without a defined membership can't have votes on
> anything. At best it can have straw polls; the decision falls with the
> person or people running the service or activity. They can decide to go
> with the straw poll, but it's still their decision.
>
> On 1/24/13 4:37 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>>> rather than in the abstract?
>>>
>>
>> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a
>> set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more
>> uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way
>> to handle it.
>>
>> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems
>> there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what
>> type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
>>
>> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub
>> issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get
>> resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the
>> forks, or "no policy at all".
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>
>
>
> --
> Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
> http://www.garymcgath.com



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Shaun Ellis]

--And how did we get from "The code of conduct is sufficient so let's not overthink 
things!" to "Wait, we need to implement procedures to vote on the code of conduct!" 
anyway??



We got there because you replied that there was an ongoing debate about 
whether the policy was sufficient enough to deal with any discomfort 
folks might have about zoia.  I still think the policy is sufficient, as 
it's meant to be used when dealing with incidents in context, not in the 
abstract.  To date, no one has spoken up about an incident where they 
were harassed by zoia.  Unless there's something I missed, it has all 
been speculation that someone might be harassed in the future. 
According to the anti-harassment policy, if you read it, no action 
should be taken.


To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used in 
the policy because I wouldn't support it being there.  Differing 
opinions can make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop 
sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I be banned?


It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy.  If you want to 
see something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and 
change it. :)





-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Shaun 
Ellis
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)


I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
rather than in the abstract?



I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a set of 
guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more uneasy about 
ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle it.

I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there is 
still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of behavior it is meant 
to prevent.

I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues and resolve 
them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the 
end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy at all".

Does that sound reasonable?

--
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library



P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential 
and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use,
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all 
attachments from your system."




--
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives
Princeton University Library

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

If it gets to that point it's the police who'll have to decide whether
you were acting in self-defense or not.  When things reach the level of
violence or a clear threat, it doesn't matter what the convention policy
is; it's a question of who committed a crime.

Just what are we talking about, anyway? I haven't been following all the
threads, since I'm not going to Code4Lib, but if we're talking about
situations where people realistically fear violence and are preparing to
respond with it, things have completely fallen apart.

On 1/24/13 5:40 PM, Ranti Junus wrote:
> My question has been addressed. Looks like I am allowed to beat first and
> then report to Francis (my hero!)
> I will leave up to Francis to decide how he would implement the sanction.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> ranti.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Francis Kayiwa  wrote:
> 
>> Ranti Junus wrote:
>>
>>> Let's talk the practical and the implementation. Kinda tired reading the
>>> on
>>> and on and on discussions.
>>>
>>> So, um, if I get harrased and I felt threatened, can I beat up that person
>>> senseless first for self-defense, then report the incident to... to whom?
>>>
>>> There's on open question on the github [1] that I haven't seen been
>>> discussed yet. At least, I haven't heard the input from this year's
>>> organizer: "Do we require a duty
>>> officer>> anti-harassment/Duty_officer

>>>
>>> explicitly?
>>> Is it fair/reasonable/workable to have conference staff be in that role?"
>>>
>>
>> Let's make that me for this year.
>>
>> I hope you won't have to defend yourself or beat up anyone but do report
>> that to me. I will make sure I am  *very easy to spot* ;-)



-- 
Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
http://www.garymcgath.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Jonathan Rochkind]

On 1/24/2013 5:32 PM, Gary McGath wrote:

A non-organization without a defined membership can't have votes on
anything.


Sure it can, we've DONE it. How can we have done something impossible?

But we do it when we think it's the best way to proceed, the most 
efficient way to arriving at the best decsions we can.  It's, to 
many/most of us, clearly not here. I agree with Deborah Fitchett:


> There's a code of conduct which has been developed the way Code4Lib 
develops things: ie the work's been done by people who're interested in 
doing the work. What's special about anti-harassment that it alone 
should bear the burden of bureacracy?


People who think nothing exists unless it's formally/legally organized 
with a defined membership think Code4Lib doesn't even EXIST.  But 
obviously we do exist!   And obviously we do things!


And we have some problems, like any community, and we're trying to 
address some of them. But I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that we 
as a community are so fundamentally problematic that our very nature 
needs to be fundamentally changed to address it.  Generally, most of the 
people, even those pointing out problems, like Code4lib  -- otherwise, 
why would they care to spend time fixing it?

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

If you're harassed to the point that you have to beat the person senseless then 
you should strongly consider reporting the incident to the police. Or a lawyer, 
in case for some reason the harasser doesn't tell the truth about why they got 
beaten senseless and the police end up involved anyway.

Most harassment doesn't go that far (at least until the harasser is convinced 
that you've got reasons for not being willing to beat them senseless no matter 
what they do, such as not wanting to get unfairly arrested) in which case the 
code of conduct says "an event organizer, volunteer, or a "Code4lib helper" in 
person (if at an event) or over IRC."

I would far rather keep it open to various options than having a single person 
on duty, because if you're being harassed and want to report it, then you 
should have a choice of who you feel most comfortable talking to. But this 
isn't to discourage people from volunteering to be *a* duty officer; the more 
options the better.

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ranti 
Junus
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:23 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

Let's talk the practical and the implementation. Kinda tired reading the on and 
on and on discussions.

So, um, if I get harrased and I felt threatened, can I beat up that person 
senseless first for self-defense, then report the incident to... to whom?

There's on open question on the github [1] that I haven't seen been discussed 
yet. At least, I haven't heard the input from this year's
organizer: "Do we require a duty
officer<http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Duty_officer>
explicitly?
Is it fair/reasonable/workable to have conference staff be in that role?"


ranti.

[1] https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy

--
Bulk mail.  Postage paid.



P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential 
and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, 
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender 
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all 
attachments from your system."

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ranti Junus]

My question has been addressed. Looks like I am allowed to beat first and
then report to Francis (my hero!)
I will leave up to Francis to decide how he would implement the sanction.


thanks,
ranti.


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Francis Kayiwa  wrote:

> Ranti Junus wrote:
>
>> Let's talk the practical and the implementation. Kinda tired reading the
>> on
>> and on and on discussions.
>>
>> So, um, if I get harrased and I felt threatened, can I beat up that person
>> senseless first for self-defense, then report the incident to... to whom?
>>
>> There's on open question on the github [1] that I haven't seen been
>> discussed yet. At least, I haven't heard the input from this year's
>> organizer: "Do we require a duty
>> officer> anti-harassment/Duty_officer
>> >
>>
>> explicitly?
>> Is it fair/reasonable/workable to have conference staff be in that role?"
>>
>
> Let's make that me for this year.
>
> I hope you won't have to defend yourself or beat up anyone but do report
> that to me. I will make sure I am  *very easy to spot* ;-)
>
> regards,
> ./fxk
>
>
>
>>
>> ranti.
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://github.com/code4lib/**antiharassment-policy
>>
>>
> --
> May your camel be as swift as the wind.
>



-- 
Bulk mail.  Postage paid.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Francis Kayiwa]

Ranti Junus wrote:

Let's talk the practical and the implementation. Kinda tired reading the on
and on and on discussions.

So, um, if I get harrased and I felt threatened, can I beat up that person
senseless first for self-defense, then report the incident to... to whom?

There's on open question on the github [1] that I haven't seen been
discussed yet. At least, I haven't heard the input from this year's
organizer: "Do we require a duty
officer
explicitly?
Is it fair/reasonable/workable to have conference staff be in that role?"


Let's make that me for this year.

I hope you won't have to defend yourself or beat up anyone but do report 
that to me. I will make sure I am  *very easy to spot* ;-)


regards,
./fxk




ranti.

[1] https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy



--
May your camel be as swift as the wind.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Gary McGath]

A non-organization without a defined membership can't have votes on
anything. At best it can have straw polls; the decision falls with the
person or people running the service or activity. They can decide to go
with the straw poll, but it's still their decision.

On 1/24/13 4:37 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>> rather than in the abstract?
>>
> 
> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a
> set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more
> uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way
> to handle it.
> 
> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems
> there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what
> type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
> 
> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub
> issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get
> resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the
> forks, or "no policy at all".
> 
> Does that sound reasonable?
> 


-- 
Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
http://www.garymcgath.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ranti Junus]

Let's talk the practical and the implementation. Kinda tired reading the on
and on and on discussions.

So, um, if I get harrased and I felt threatened, can I beat up that person
senseless first for self-defense, then report the incident to... to whom?

There's on open question on the github [1] that I haven't seen been
discussed yet. At least, I haven't heard the input from this year's
organizer: "Do we require a duty
officer
explicitly?
Is it fair/reasonable/workable to have conference staff be in that role?"


ranti.

[1] https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy

-- 
Bulk mail.  Postage paid.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Fitchett, Deborah]

No, it doesn't sound that reasonable to me, actually. There's a code of conduct 
which has been developed the way Code4Lib develops things: ie the work's been 
done by people who're interested in doing the work. What's special about 
anti-harassment that it alone should bear the burden of bureacracy?

Is there really anything so controversial about "If you harass people, and 
organisers ask you to stop, and you don't stop, then organisers may kick you 
out of whatever the context is"?  This is just not that ambiguous. And honestly 
I'm not terribly comfortable when the conversation starts to get all waffly 
about whether or not we should expect people to commit to something that is 
basic human decency and a vital part of the social contract. Why would we be 
more worried even in the abstract about an obdurate harasser than about the 
comfort of the people zie's harassing?

You may not like the word "uncomfortable" (though you're happy enough to use 
"uneasy") but why *shouldn't* we have as a priority to ensure the comfort of 
members in our community? There's a vast difference between being uncomfortable 
because you're not familiar with Python and being uncomfortable because 
someone's harassing you and I think everyone here is clever enough not to 
conflate the two.

--And how did we get from "The code of conduct is sufficient so let's not 
overthink things!" to "Wait, we need to implement procedures to vote on the 
code of conduct!" anyway??

Deborah

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Shaun 
Ellis
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even 
> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context, 
> rather than in the abstract?
>

I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a set of 
guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more uneasy about 
ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle it.

I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems there is 
still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type of behavior 
it is meant to prevent.

I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues and 
resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get resolved end up in a 
branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy at all".

Does that sound reasonable?

--
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library



P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential 
and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, 
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender 
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all 
attachments from your system."

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ed Summers]

So we have a reasonable policy in place. Can we now tackle the creepy
things as they come up? I am not opposed to voting about this. It just
seems like a crazy thing to do, because I can't imagine anyone would
be opposed to it. But maybe I lack imagination.

//Ed

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:49 PM, BWS Johnson  wrote:
> Salve!
>
>
>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>> rather than in the abstract?
>>
>> Or has a specific issue come up, and I'm just being daft?
>
> It's needed. It was requested. Specifically creepy things happening is 
> why this came up. The policy is necessary to help people deal with things as 
> they come up in context.
>
> I'm uneasy about voting on minority rights. That usually doesn't go well, 
> and it almost always misses the point.
>
> Cheers,
> Brooke

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[James Stuart]

I think that a voting process which involves working both with github, the
issue tracker, and presumably using the network map of branches seems a bit
ornate, puts a barrier to contribution up, and is likely to be confusing.

I think that if a /whatever policy is developed for "how does C4L decide to
resolve conflicts?", that comes first, and then what technological tools
support that should flow naturally from that decision.





On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Shaun Ellis  wrote:

> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>> rather than in the abstract?
>>
>>
> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a set
> of guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more uneasy
> about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way to handle
> it.
>
> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems
> there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what type
> of behavior it is meant to prevent.
>
> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub issues
> and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get resolved end up
> in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the forks, or "no policy
> at all".
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
>
>
> --
> Shaun Ellis
> User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives
> Princeton University Library
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[BWS Johnson]

Salve!


> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
> rather than in the abstract?
> 
> Or has a specific issue come up, and I'm just being daft?

    It's needed. It was requested. Specifically creepy things happening is why 
this came up. The policy is necessary to help people deal with things as they 
come up in context.

    I'm uneasy about voting on minority rights. That usually doesn't go well, 
and it almost always misses the point.

Cheers,
Brooke

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Shaun Ellis]

I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
rather than in the abstract?



I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a 
set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more 
uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way 
to handle it.


I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems 
there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what 
type of behavior it is meant to prevent.


I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub 
issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get 
resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the 
forks, or "no policy at all".


Does that sound reasonable?

--
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives
Princeton University Library

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Ed Summers]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Shaun Ellis  wrote:
> Any policy that could result in people being removed or banned for failing
> to comply warrants a group decision.  Unless anyone presumes to speak for
> the group, online voting is the only tool we have to make it official.  I
> understand it's new territory, but does anyone have a problem with it?

I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
rather than in the abstract?

Or has a specific issue come up, and I'm just being daft?

//Ed

Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

[Shaun Ellis]

Any policy that could result in people being removed or banned for 
failing to comply warrants a group decision.  Unless anyone presumes to 
speak for the group, online voting is the only tool we have to make it 
official.  I understand it's new territory, but does anyone have a 
problem with it?


On 1/24/13 10:01 AM, Mark A. Matienzo wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:

Any group decision in the past has been done via diebold-o-tron.


No, this is not true, that "any" group decision has been done via online vote. 
Or it's true only in the sense that one only considers it a 'group decision' if it was 
done by online vote.

[..snip..]

To my knowledge, no other decision about code4lib has ever been made by online 
vote.


More to the point, no other decision about code4lib in terms of
"action" or "policy" has been made ever. This is new territory for us.

Mark




--
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives
Princeton University Library