Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya marina...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Hi Marina, The majority of the board voted for the long version of the code of conduct for GUADEC to be posted. We really appreciate all the work done by the organizers, but people who voted in favor feel that it's the board's responsibility to make decisions that affect the GNOME community as a whole, and having the code of conducts for events is one such decision. Our goal is to develop a similar code of conduct that applies to all GNOME events. People who voted in favor thought that explaining the rules and how they will be enforced is a good idea. As I said earlier, we disapprove but will comply with the decision taken by the board. Please post the version below, which includes a short version, on https://www.guadec.org/conduct Your account on the Wordpress should have sufficient permission. Can you take care of that? The reason the board was included in this thread from the beginning is that the initial policy said that people can contact anyone on the board and because I wanted people on the board to be able to provide feedback about the policy. Ok. I think it would have been useful to mention it in the beginning. -- Alexandre Franke ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:13:01PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: I've discussed this in private one-to-one conversations with several organization team members and everyone is uncomfortable with having such a policy. I'm uncomfortable attending a conference run by people who feel uncomfortable with having such a policy. Such policies have proven more effective than generic Be friendly policies in creating an atmosphere of safety, and despite frequent claims that they'll result in a chilling effect there's been no evidence of that whatsoever. I've been to five conferences so far this year. All have had a strong anti-harassment policy. People have complained about the lack of tea. People have complained about the distance from an airport. People have complained about having a rail freight line running through the convention centre. I have heard *no* complaints about the code of conduct. I have seen nobody's speech stifled. I have seen no false complaints made. Given that many large conferences (including OSCON, LCA, the OpenStack summit and every Linux Foundation event) with a cumulative total of thousands of attendees have implemented such policies, if chilling effects were likely shouldn't we have seen complaints already? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: I'm uncomfortable attending a conference run by people who feel uncomfortable with having such a policy. Such policies have proven more effective than generic Be friendly policies in creating an atmosphere of safety, and despite frequent claims that they'll result in a chilling effect there's been no evidence of that whatsoever. I've been to five conferences so far this year. All have had a strong anti-harassment policy. People have complained about the lack of tea. People have complained about the distance from an airport. People have complained about having a rail freight line running through the convention centre. I have heard *no* complaints about the code of conduct. I have seen nobody's speech stifled. I have seen no false complaints made. Have you been to FOSDEM? Have there been complaints about the FOSDEM policy not being enough or people boycotting the FOSDEM because of the lack of a stronger policy? Given that many large conferences (including OSCON, LCA, the OpenStack summit and every Linux Foundation event) with a cumulative total of thousands of attendees have implemented such policies, if chilling effects were likely shouldn't we have seen complaints already? You're using an argument that's been rightfully dismissed when used the other way around. If harassment was such a big problem, I would have heard about it. When people get uncomfortable (be it because they've been harassed or because they feel oppressed by a policy), it is not reasonnable to expect them to talk openly about it. -- Alexandre Franke ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:57:27PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: Have you been to FOSDEM? Not since I started caring about conferences having useful CoCs. Have there been complaints about the FOSDEM policy not being enough or people boycotting the FOSDEM because of the lack of a stronger policy? There have been complaints, yes. Some people I know won't go to FOSDEM as a result. But that's anecdotal rather than compelling evidence, and I wouldn't expect anybody to change their mind based on it. It's certainly possible for a conference to be successful without a strong CoC. It's absolutely possible for the vast majority of attendees to have a good time. Given that many large conferences (including OSCON, LCA, the OpenStack summit and every Linux Foundation event) with a cumulative total of thousands of attendees have implemented such policies, if chilling effects were likely shouldn't we have seen complaints already? You're using an argument that's been rightfully dismissed when used the other way around. If harassment was such a big problem, I would have heard about it. There are many documented cases of harassment occurring. How many documented cases of people being unjustly restricted by a CoC have there been? If it's equally difficult to talk about both (which strikes me as unlikely - discussing harassment at conferences tends to get you sexualised slurs and threats of violence, discussing restrictions on freedom of speech tends to get you praise), that still seems like an argument that more people are affected by harassment than are affected by CoCs. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hi, On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: You're using an argument that's been rightfully dismissed when used the other way around. If harassment was such a big problem, I would have heard about it. We've had to adopt CoCs for a few different groups in Chicago [1], and recently the local hackerspace also adopted one. The hackerspace adopted one because they found that many women who came to events did not return. When a woman joined the board for the space, she started asking questions and found that newcomers were leaving and the hackerspace never heard about the problems because people didn't feel comfortable raising issues publicly. So sometimes you don't hear about the cases. I think having a policy in place is helpful because, if there is an incident, then it is easier for organizers to deal with the problem without personal conflict. Cheers, Meg [1]https://openhatch.org/blog/2013/dealing-with-uncomfortable/ ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Sorry, my previous email contained the wrong attribution for the quote On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:57:27PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: You're using an argument that's been rightfully dismissed when used the other way around. If harassment was such a big problem, I would have heard about it. --Meg ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On 14 July 2014 14:08, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:13:01PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: I've discussed this in private one-to-one conversations with several organization team members and everyone is uncomfortable with having such a policy. I'm uncomfortable attending a conference run by people who feel uncomfortable with having such a policy. Such policies have proven more effective than generic Be friendly policies in creating an atmosphere of safety, and despite frequent claims that they'll result in a chilling effect there's been no evidence of that whatsoever. I personally have nothing against giving clear examples of things that we don't want as it may not be obvious to everyone. I however felt very unconfortable with the tone of the original suggested policy. It made me feel the same way as going to some country with very strict laws that I would be scared to violate all the time. I tend to be more unconfortable in the presence of the police than in the presence of random strangers and I have always avoided environments (including for work) that focus on punishing. I wouldn't want to do an activity like learning to drive if the first lesson before starting was about all the different ways I may hurt or kill people and how many years in prison I would get in each case. Even if I think it's a good thing to be informed about those risks. This is why I had suggested some changes to focus on the positive side, keeping the environment friendly for everyone rather than focusing on all bad things that can happen and the consequences. Having rules that can be enforced is good, that's not a reason to be aggressive. ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
First of all, I'm pretty sure nobody in this discussion said there should be no policy *at all*. There seems to be a misunderstanding that this discussion is between those for a policy vs those against any form of policy and it is not. Maybe those advocating a strong policy could use a moment to think about it, maybe they'd see we're not their enemies. As someone said elsewhere, my heart sank a bit for every email in the discussion where people assumed we're not better than that. We said we'd comply with the decision, so the code of conduct will be published. I don't think insisting on the fact that we're bad people serves any purpose. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: It's certainly possible for a conference to be successful without a strong CoC. It's absolutely possible for the vast majority of attendees to have a good time. Here you're implying that having a soft code, however clear it is, doesn't work when it comes to enforcement. I think that's the main point we disagree on. I don't see how to fix this disagreement. There are many documented cases of harassment occurring. How many documented cases of people being unjustly restricted by a CoC have there been? If it's equally difficult to talk about both (which strikes me as unlikely - discussing harassment at conferences tends to get you sexualised slurs and threats of violence, discussing restrictions on freedom of speech tends to get you praise), that still seems like an argument that more people are affected by harassment than are affected by CoCs. It took years before the people advocating strong policies got to the point where they are now. I'd expect it will take time before the people that feel oppressed get to a similar point, if they ever decide to organize themselves in a similar fashion. But that will most probably never happen as the latter group wouldn't want to harass people (from the former group, or not) by insisting with their point of view. -- Alexandre Franke ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: First of all, I'm pretty sure nobody in this discussion said there should be no policy *at all*. There seems to be a misunderstanding that this discussion is between those for a policy vs those against any form of policy and it is not. Maybe those advocating a strong policy could use a moment to think about it, maybe they'd see we're not their enemies. As someone said elsewhere, my heart sank a bit for every email in the discussion where people assumed we're not better than that. Strong policies achieve their aims. Weak policies don't. The lack of a clear set of examples means that people are less likely to report inappropriate behaviour because they feel like it'll just turn into an argument about whether specific acts violate a vague Be respectful term. The idea of having a strong policy isn't to actually alter what's acceptable, it's to ensure that organisers and attendees have an equal understanding. We said we'd comply with the decision, so the code of conduct will be published. I don't think insisting on the fact that we're bad people serves any purpose. I don't think you're terrible people, and I'm sorry if it's seemed like I'm implying that. I think you're wrong on this particular point, but it's a point of discussion. I don't think you actually believe that any of the behaviours described in the CoC would be acceptable. But arguing against them will result in some people questioning that. If you won't accept a policy that says it's not ok to sexually harrass another attendee, does that mean that you won't take complaints about that behaviour seriously? It's certainly possible for a conference to be successful without a strong CoC. It's absolutely possible for the vast majority of attendees to have a good time. Here you're implying that having a soft code, however clear it is, doesn't work when it comes to enforcement. I think that's the main point we disagree on. I don't see how to fix this disagreement. There's two reasons for a CoC: 1) To ensure that attendees agree on a base level of acceptable behaviour and the outcomes for contravening that 2) To demonstrate to attendees that you take the problem seriously A soft policy doesn't really help either of these. One of the problems with many of the reported incidents has been that the harasser thought what they were doing was fine and that it's all just a harmless misunderstanding. Conferences with soft policies tend to then do nothing about it, because if it was just a misunderstanding then did anyone really do anything wrong? People talk about these things. People have lists of conferences that they feel safe at. People's opinons are influenced by the presence of a strong CoC. People now know that the absence of a strong CoC tends to be correlated with an absence of strong enforcement, and that means there are people who will avoid conferences that don't have one. It's not necessarily a boycot so much as a choice to spend time somewhere they feel safer. There are many documented cases of harassment occurring. How many documented cases of people being unjustly restricted by a CoC have there been? If it's equally difficult to talk about both (which strikes me as unlikely - discussing harassment at conferences tends to get you sexualised slurs and threats of violence, discussing restrictions on freedom of speech tends to get you praise), that still seems like an argument that more people are affected by harassment than are affected by CoCs. It took years before the people advocating strong policies got to the point where they are now. I'd expect it will take time before the people that feel oppressed get to a similar point, if they ever decide to organize themselves in a similar fashion. But that will most probably never happen as the latter group wouldn't want to harass people (from the former group, or not) by insisting with their point of view. We're comparing demonstrated harm to theoretical harm. It makes sense to prioritise the thing we know exists rather than the thing we're worried might exist. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
