After further thought, I'm uncomfortable with the word "uncomfortable",
and I regret using it. In fact, it doesn't appear in the
anti-harrassment policy at all. I think the essence of the policy is to
provide a "safe" and "non-threatening" space. I can only speak for
myself, but I'm not committed to creating a "comfortable" space, at
least based on any vague definition of "comfort".
Discomfort is often where dialogue and learning occur. PHP developers
will not feel "comfortable" when many of the top talkers are Ruby
enthusiasts. Do we ask them to stop when they curse PHP, or perceive
they are wrongly discriminating against it? No. We challenge their
assumptions and learn about the differences, or we see it for a
religious war timesuck and don't participate. I see no way for Code4Lib
to regulate comfort, and doing so would lessen the value it provides.
If there is something someone says or does that is unacceptable to me, I
calmly let them know how I feel and why. It's unrealistic to expect any
behavior to change if you don't take the responsibility to address it
when and where it happens.
Karen, you bring up a good point when you ask about interpretation and
enforcement of the policy, should someone be personally attacked or
harassed on the basis of gender, race, age, etc. How does anyone know
whether the anti-harrassment policy, or which revision, has actually
been adopted and accepted by the group? Because no one has objected?
Because it's under github/code4lib? There's only a handful of
"signatures" on it.
How are revisions proposed and made? Sure, someone can submit changes,
but they are only merged with the consent/approval of the github
admin(s) -- and none of this is done on list because it's a separate
system that has way more usable tools for discussing proposed changes.
That puts the admins in the precarious role of deciding what gets in or
not -- essentially a role of governance that they may not have asked
for. It can also lead to the perception that changes are made "behind
closed doors" if revisions are not first proposed to and debated on "the
list". Is that an acceptable process?
Any group decision in the past has been done via diebold-o-tron. Do we
need a vote to "ratify" the anti-harrassment policy and an appropriate
process for changes?
-Shaun
On 1/23/13 7:12 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
Shaun: and yet when people spoke up on this mailing list about not being comfortable with
Zoia, part of the response included people telling them essentially "you're spoiling
our fun".
It wasn't the only response, and I do note that things seem to be moving to
reforming Zoia, which contributes to this group feeling pretty good on the
whole. But it was still a *noticeable* response, so messages implying that
current culture/procedures are sufficient without continuing discussion seem
premature.
Deborah
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Shaun
Ellis
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013 5:00 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Zoia
Karen, yes, there is a procedure for dealing with speaking up:
// Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply
immediately. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, organizers may
take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender,
expulsion from the Code4Lib event, or banning the offender from a chatroom or
mailing list. // [1]
It's easier to sense someone's discomfort in person. But in IRC, there's no
way to tell and the issue can only be addressed if someone speaks up.
[1]
https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md
-Shaun
On 1/23/13 10:28 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
"Speak up" only works if the speaker is treated with respect. If,
instead, the speaker is assailed with a litany of "you shouldn't think
that" and "you're spoiling our fun", then I doubt if you will get many
speakers.
There needs to be a procedure for dealing with "speaking up" that
doesn't resemble a public drubbing. Until that is added into the
policy, the policy itself is a false promise and likely to make things
worse for anyone speaking up, rather than better.
kc
On 1/23/13 5:21 AM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
Isn't this why we have an anti-harrassment policy? Why not hold zoia
(and all bots) accountable to the code of conduct like everyone else?
If zoia says something that makes you feel uncomfortable, then speak
up and we will take appropriate measures by removing the plugin or
removing that response from the data set. Let's not over-think it.
-Shaun
On 1/22/13 10:56 PM, Bill Dueber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Genny Engel <gen...@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
wrote:
Guess there's no groundswell of support for firing Zoia and
replacing her/it with a GLaDOS irc bot, then?
I'm in. "We've both said things you're going to regret."
[GLaDOS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glados> is the
really-quite-mean AI from the games Portal and Portal2]
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Genny Engel
<gen...@sonoma.lib.ca.us>wrote:
Guess there's no groundswell of support for firing Zoia and
replacing her/it with a GLaDOS irc bot, then?
*Sigh.*
Genny Engel
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On
Behalf Of Andromeda Yelton
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:30 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Zoia
FWIW, I am both an active #libtechwomen participant and someone who
is so thoroughly charmed by zoia I am frequently bothered she isn't
right there *in my real life*. (Yes, I have tried to issue zoia
commands during face-to-face conversations with non-Code4Libbers.)
I think a collaboratively maintained bot with a highly open ethos
is always going to end up with some things that cross people's
lines, and that's an opportunity to talk about those lines and
rearticulate our group norms.
And to that end, I'm in favor of weeding the collection of
plugins, whether because of offensiveness or disuse. (Perhaps this
would be a good use of github's issue tracker, too?)
I also think some sort of 'what's zoia and how can you contribute'
link would be useful in any welcome-newbie plugin; it did take me a
while to figure out what was going on there. (Just as it took me
the while to acquire the tastes for, say, coffee, bourbon, and blue
cheese, tastes which I would now defend ferociously.)
But not having zoia would make me sad. And defining zoia to be
woman-unfriendly, when zoia-lovers and zoia-haters appear to span
the gender spectrum and have a variety of reasons (both gendered
and
non) for
their reactions, would make me sad too.
@love zoia.
Andromeda
--
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
