(this thread went to different depths on different lists, but I saw some
consensus that planners@ was where it was at, so replying only there)
I would like to see many more references to specific policies and their
non-hypothetical outcomes. Myrle mentioned Christina Ford on dev@diversity
as an
planners@ is a public list with vendors & sponsors. I have no good answer
for how I would have done this differently but your idea isn't a bad one.
I would likely have done the opposite though and point out the board@
thread and pointed other lists there.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache
I think the message needed cross posting to bring it to the attention of
people on the board, dealing with roadshows/cons and those dealing with
diversity. But I didn't think it belonged on members@.
Where would you suggest it have been posted?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 07:56 Rich Bowen wrote:
>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 15:58 Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> But: the diversity committee is not responsible for CoC enforcement, so
> this is just philosophizing here. It would be on-topic on the planners@
> list.
>
Fwiw the original message was crossposted to three lists. (I wish people
wouldn't do
e up the basic pillars of our
> society,
> >> > >> just
> >> > >>>>> because someone was offended, or even hurt. Sorry, but to me,
> the
> >> > >>>> principle
> >> > >>>>> of "rather let a murderer go free, than risk convict
> > >>>> will not switch from investigating X to penalizing you just because
> > you
> > >>>> said that. Of course, X has a strong case for defamation damages if
> > you
> > >>>> say it falsely.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
m
> >>>> investigating the original violation to penalizing the victim for
> >>>> talking about it, regardless of the truth of the victim's remarks.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With all due respect
> >>>>> Ni
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 18:23, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
> As a reminder, the original proposal that troubles me was:
>
>> I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to
>> me that the point of "public accusations" should constitute
>> harassment in and of itself. Do we
n
> >>>> described the violation publicly you would want the ASF to switch from
> >>>> investigating the original violation to penalizing the victim for
> >>>> talking about it, regardless of the truth of the victim's remarks.
> >>>>
> >&
_
From: Patricia Shanahan
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re: FYI
Could you clarify who would be prohibited from public statements by
this?
Historically, rules requiring confidentiality have been used to
restrict
victims of harassment from
N THIS MAIL I AM ATTEMPTING TO DIG DEEPER THAN THE SURFACE. I AM NOT
> >>>> ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ANY JUDGEMENT ON ANY SPECIFIC OPINION OR
> SITUATION. I
> >>>> BEG THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRY TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES. IF SOMETHING
> SEEMS
> >>>> "OFF" IN SOME WAY PLEASE ASK FOR CLARIFICA
nocent
from false accusations and trial by media.
It's very hard to find the right balance. How might the ASF best handle
a
situation like this?
Ross
From: Patricia Shanahan
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 6:18:52 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org
Subject: Re
from false accusations and trial by media.
> >>
> >> It's very hard to find the right balance. How might the ASF best handle
> a
> >> situation like this?
> >>
> >> Ross
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
Could you clarify who would be prohibited from public statements by this?
Historically, rules requiring confidentiality have been used to restrict
victims of harassment from talking publicly about incidents. That has
let harassment and assault continue by preventing discovery of a pattern
of
I don't know the details on the circumstances here, but it seems to me that
the point of "public accusations" should constitute harassment in and of
itself. Do we make that explicit?
// Niclas
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:19 AM Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What
Yeah just bringing it for others to loop in.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi wrote:
> Quite a bit of activity about this on Twitter yesterday...
>
> - - -
> Vice President Marketing & Publicity
> Vice President Sponsor Relations
> The Apache Software Foundation
>
> Tel +1 617 921 8656
This is just Uncle Bob being reactionary. What else is new?
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 14:28 Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Yeah just bringing it for others to loop in.
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, 15:26 Sally Khudairi wrote:
>
> > Quite a bit of activity about this on Twitter yesterday...
> >
> > - - -
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
