LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  January 2013

CODE4LIB January 2013

Subject:

Re: Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

From:

"Fitchett, Deborah" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:50:41 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (71 lines)

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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shaun Ellis
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 12:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of Shaun Ellis
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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

"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."

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1301&L=CODE4LIB&D=0&P=387924
lists.clir.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-13
59442
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CWHDLPBGKT3CKCQ763DCKHXW5NMXC7CO
<urn:uuid:fab2c3da-d16f-44b5-acb8-9472911da402>
2019-03-19T14:44:40Z
66.175.211.245
text/html
sha1:K5ZCDVRSKLOO7XFAJJU2D72GUAMKVXYT
<urn:uuid:73fbb720-b200-41ad-9e0d-df5fcb784cab>
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1301&L=CODE4LIB&D=0&P=387924
response
<urn:uuid:aeedb766-379f-492a-b8cb-cd4db191d7f0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-13
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-69-221-252.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/