Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Le samedi 05 juillet 2014 à 17:43 +0200, Christophe Fergeau a écrit : > > Alexandre, could you please provide any available local numbers for > > law enforcement, sexual assault hot line, emergency and >> non-emergency medical, and a taxi company. > > I'm not sure these local hot lines (if they exist) will be able to > deal with English speakers (to be checked). I was under the same impression: local support hotlines are probably not going to be helpful in countries that do not have a strong multilingual public services offering culture. It would work in Canada where both French and English are official languages that you can demand to be served in, but I doubt the same could be said about France. Besides, when we're talking about psychological intervention, proficiency with the language (not "elementary" skill) is a requirement. The rest of the policy sounds fine to me. ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
I find this post on the subject very interesting http://jennierosehalperin.me/codes-of-conduct/ -- -mvh Oliver Propst ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
O Lun, 14-07-2014 ás 14:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett escribiu: > 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. Agree 100%. Best regards. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ 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
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 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 14 July 2014 14:08, Matthew Garrett 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
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
Hi, On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Matthew Garrett 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
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
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Matthew Garrett 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 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 Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya 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
Some outsider comment as I'm on this mailing list, somehow. :) On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 16:41 -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau > wrote: > > What is "a sexual message"? Who will decide that? For some muslim, > > women's hair must be covered, or even most of the face ( > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam ) « The principal aim of the > > Muslim veil is to hide that which men find sexually attractive. ». > > We can use Western society's idea of what conveys a sexual message. I would rather point to the CoC instead: It also contains "regardless of [...] physical appearance" which in my humble interpretation rates anybody's personal freedom to wear a veil (or not) higher than somebody else's potential interpretation of whether somebody should cover her/his hair or not. So if a conflict on interpreting "sexual message" arose, then people should maybe respectfully talk to each other and point out the issue, which the CoC is about (or not? well, to me it is). As self-censorship was brought up earlier: I share the sentiment but I don't consider it bad to think twice what you say and how you act, especially in a diverse community. I expect everybody to assume good faith at first, or at least naivity, or even stupidity, instead of assuming an intention of insulting and hurting feelings. Behavior and terms are always interpretable. We will never find an "objective" wording that conveys a totally clear and shared interpretation in our diverse world, e.g. for "sexual images". Still that doesn't mean that people shouldn't think first when choosing images in presentations whether they could be considered sexual by part of the audience. If you're unsure, ask your (hopefully diverse enough) peer group for feedback first? Maybe it's just my understanding, but I thought we are first of all after creating more awareness and understanding of problems created by behavior considered problematic by some, plus supporting everybody in being good and respectful community members by providing guidelines. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On 11 July 2014 21:41, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau > wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:51:21PM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other >>> >> types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added. >>> >> E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not >>> >> appropriate for any conference venue, including talks" >>> > >>> > This is a common concern in some circles yes. What we seem to be doing >>> > here is assuming people are going to do bad (ie are going to be jerks), >>> > and to avoid this, we have to put ourselves in the position of censors. >>> >>> People will sometimes act as jerks either because they feel like it or >>> because they don't realize how their actions affect others. This >>> happens at technical conferences often. It happens at GUADEC rarely, >>> but there have been a few incidents (most of them private). >> >> Uh? I was talking about explicitly banning public display of sexual >> imagery in the anti-harassment policy, I don't think these private >> incindents had something to do with this, did they? > > RMS's presentation had sexual language (in addition to being sexist). > >> >> >>> Having a policy doesn't mean we assume everyone will be a jerk, but we >>> want to deter or know how to deal with a jerk-like behavior because it >>> might happen. >> >> Well, public display of sexual imagery is not the only way of being a >> jerk, I'm not talking about the anti-harassement policy as a whole here. >> I can find plenty of offensive pictures which are not banned by the >> policy (for example, Muhammad pictures, especially caricatures would be >> a *very* bad thing to do). Why is the policy not banning that because >> some people could be jerks? Also, I remember >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-moXUALZtw caused some issues in a past >> GUADEC, but still we do nothing about this in the policy, and we try to >> prevent potential abuse of sexual imagery? > > They fell under harassment in the earlier version. The latest version > covers it more explicitly: > > "Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference > venue, including talks. Sexist, racist, or other exclusionary comments > or jokes are not appropriate for GUADEC. Such content and remarks can > be harassing to people by making them feel excluded by other > attendees." > >> >> >>> >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/EMACS_virgins_joke >>> >>> > I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be doing that. >>> > >>> > I'd rather assume people will do good, tell them we trust them to behave >>> > appropriately, and possibly reminding them to be wary of others' >>> > sensibilities. This seems much more positive to me and more rewarding >>> > for our community. >>> >>> We assume people will be good and abide by the anti-harassment policy. >>> We have people of different genders and from different cultures >>> attending, which is why spelling out what it means to behave >>> appropriately is helpful. >> >> This was again in the context of the ban of sexual imagery, I was >> not talking about the anti-harassment policy as a whole. >> >>> >>> > >>> > Also, how do we define 'sexual'? Is >>> > http://www.quandjeseraigrande.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pub-Galeries-Lafayette-Jean-Paul-Goude1.jpg >>> > some sexual imagery which should be banned? (NB: this >>> > is an ad campaign from a big French department store prominently >>> > visible in Paris metro). Content which is OK in the US would probably be >>> > frowned upon/unsettling from some more 'traditionalist' countries or >>> > background. How do we set the bar here? >>> >>> I think we can set the bar to exclude images that convey a sexual >>> message, because they are off-topic for GUADEC. >> >> What is "a sexual message"? Who will decide that? For some muslim, >> women's hair must be covered, or even most of the face ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam ) « The principal aim of the >> Muslim veil is to hide that which men find sexually attractive. ». > > We can use Western society's idea of what conveys a sexual message. I am surprised to see that you do not care about cultural differences, especially given how many of the GUADEC attendees are newcomers from non-Western societies and given that one of the major arguments offered to the board was that the policy is supposed to make newcomers feel safe. Having seen the numerous opinions in this and other related threads, it appears to be that Western society does not have a consensus on what is harassment and what is not. Therefore, anyone can argue that the policy does not apply to them because they are not from the same part of Western society as you and their expectations are different even for the defined points. Thank
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > Hey, > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:49:10AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: >> If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the code of conduct >> support team members may [...] expel the participant from the >> conference with no refund for repeat or serious offense. > > Something I've been wondering in the last few days, can we concretely > expel someone from the conference if they keep coming back in spite of > us telling them they are no longer welcome and have been expelled? I'm > afraid we won't be able to do much apart from kicking them out over and > over when we notice they are present :( We can cancel their registration and ask them to give up their badge. If they come back after that, it would be trespassing and either the venue security or police can deal with that. > > Christophe ___ 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 3:19 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:51:21PM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other >> >> types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added. >> >> E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not >> >> appropriate for any conference venue, including talks" >> > >> > This is a common concern in some circles yes. What we seem to be doing >> > here is assuming people are going to do bad (ie are going to be jerks), >> > and to avoid this, we have to put ourselves in the position of censors. >> >> People will sometimes act as jerks either because they feel like it or >> because they don't realize how their actions affect others. This >> happens at technical conferences often. It happens at GUADEC rarely, >> but there have been a few incidents (most of them private). > > Uh? I was talking about explicitly banning public display of sexual > imagery in the anti-harassment policy, I don't think these private > incindents had something to do with this, did they? RMS's presentation had sexual language (in addition to being sexist). > > >> Having a policy doesn't mean we assume everyone will be a jerk, but we >> want to deter or know how to deal with a jerk-like behavior because it >> might happen. > > Well, public display of sexual imagery is not the only way of being a > jerk, I'm not talking about the anti-harassement policy as a whole here. > I can find plenty of offensive pictures which are not banned by the > policy (for example, Muhammad pictures, especially caricatures would be > a *very* bad thing to do). Why is the policy not banning that because > some people could be jerks? Also, I remember > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-moXUALZtw caused some issues in a past > GUADEC, but still we do nothing about this in the policy, and we try to > prevent potential abuse of sexual imagery? They fell under harassment in the earlier version. The latest version covers it more explicitly: "Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks. Sexist, racist, or other exclusionary comments or jokes are not appropriate for GUADEC. Such content and remarks can be harassing to people by making them feel excluded by other attendees." > > >> >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/EMACS_virgins_joke >> >> > I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be doing that. >> > >> > I'd rather assume people will do good, tell them we trust them to behave >> > appropriately, and possibly reminding them to be wary of others' >> > sensibilities. This seems much more positive to me and more rewarding >> > for our community. >> >> We assume people will be good and abide by the anti-harassment policy. >> We have people of different genders and from different cultures >> attending, which is why spelling out what it means to behave >> appropriately is helpful. > > This was again in the context of the ban of sexual imagery, I was > not talking about the anti-harassment policy as a whole. > >> >> > >> > Also, how do we define 'sexual'? Is >> > http://www.quandjeseraigrande.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pub-Galeries-Lafayette-Jean-Paul-Goude1.jpg >> > some sexual imagery which should be banned? (NB: this >> > is an ad campaign from a big French department store prominently >> > visible in Paris metro). Content which is OK in the US would probably be >> > frowned upon/unsettling from some more 'traditionalist' countries or >> > background. How do we set the bar here? >> >> I think we can set the bar to exclude images that convey a sexual >> message, because they are off-topic for GUADEC. > > What is "a sexual message"? Who will decide that? For some muslim, > women's hair must be covered, or even most of the face ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam ) « The principal aim of the > Muslim veil is to hide that which men find sexually attractive. ». We can use Western society's idea of what conveys a sexual message. > >> GUADEC is a private event, and we can decide what is appropriate for >> it. If sexual images or language are not appropriate for it and we ask >> people not to use them, then using them is a harassing act. You can >> learn more about why people often feel that these types of images and >> language are harassing at technical conferences at >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources#Sexualized_environment >> > > This is what I was saying at the beginning, I understand that sexualized > images are a concern for 'geek feminists'. I expect that different kind > of images will be a problem if there were vocal 'black geeks' or 'jewish > geeks' communities. I'm also not saying sexualized imagery is ok, just > that I don't see why this should be explicitly listed in that policy. > > Ch
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hi, 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. Please post the version below, which includes a "short version", on https://www.guadec.org/conduct The enforcement policy stays the same on https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2014/CodeOfConduct - I'd like to encourage people, especially local, French-speaking, and board members to add themselves to the support team on that page. 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. Thanks, Marina Short version for the registration form: We plan for a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please confirm that you agree with our code of conduct. Short version for the front page: GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our code of conduct. Code of conduct Short version GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please be considerate of other people in your actions at all conference events. Please report any concerns to one of the contact people below. Long version GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME contributors often make friends and resolve to come to the next GUADEC. GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to any of the above qualities, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks. Sexist, racist, or other exclusionary comments or jokes are not appropriate for GUADEC. Such content and remarks can be harassing to people by making them feel excluded by other attendees. Participants asked to stop any harassing or inappropriate behavior are expected to comply immediately. Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the code of conduct. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the code of conduct support team members may issue a warning for an unintentional or minor offense or expel the participant from the conference with no refund for repeat or serious offense. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, or anyone else on the code of conduct support team. These people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. Code of conduct support team members will be able to address the harassing or inappropriate behavior with the offender, provide escorts, contact local law enforcement, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance. We expect participants to follow these rules at all conference venues and conference-related social events. Contact information: Alexandre Franke +33 368 910 123, alexandre.franke at NO SPAM gmail DOT com Marina Zhurakhinskaya marinazik at NO SPAM gmail DOT com More names or code of contuct support team link to https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2014/CodeOfConduct#Support_team Other useful numbers: Emergency number for police, fire department, or ambulance: 112 24/7 medical assistance: “SOS médecin” +33 388 75 75 75 Taxi company: "Taxi 13" +33 388 36 13 13 On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Ekaterina Gerasimova wrote: > On 10/07/2014, Alexandre Franke wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Christophe Fergeau >> wrote: >>> Something I've been wondering in the last few days, can we concretely >>> expel someone from the conference if they keep coming back in spite of >>> us telling them they are no longer welcome and have been expelled? I'm >>> afraid we won't be able to do much apart from kicking them out over and >>> over when we notice they are present :( >> >
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On 10/07/2014, Alexandre Franke wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Christophe Fergeau > wrote: >> Something I've been wondering in the last few days, can we concretely >> expel someone from the conference if they keep coming back in spite of >> us telling them they are no longer welcome and have been expelled? I'm >> afraid we won't be able to do much apart from kicking them out over and >> over when we notice they are present :( > > As you guessed, in such a case there is not much we can do. We could > hire a bouncer but I hope everyone finds this as ridiculous as I do. > If someone is really creating problems, we can (and should) call the > police. > > So far I've only had time to reply to the technical questions that > arised (phone numbers…) and not to the practical side of implementing > a policy. Let me fix this. > > To begin with, I reverted the change by Pascal, as we didn't reach a > consensus and publishing the policy Marina suggested is not ok. (Also > I think some information I had on the page were missing, such as the > number for SOS médecin) > > I've discussed this in private one-to-one conversations with several > organization team members and everyone is uncomfortable with having > such a policy. There are potential harassment victim in this group > (female, black, fat…). The general feeling is that having a policy > such as the long one Marina wrote: > * intimidates everyone and establishes a climate of fear > * is not more efficient than a shorter one such as the current > https://www.guadec.org/policy/ version > * encourages "tl;dr" (too long; didn't read) behaviour > > To be frank, I feel that pushing a lengthy policy is a form of > harassment in itself and I'm getting tired of it. > > I see that board-list is CCed in this entire thread and I'm not sure I > get the reason. If the board is the body that makes this decision, > then we'll of course comply with the decision. Just know that the > organization team disapproves the proposed policy. As a board member, I'm not sure that I get the reason either. The policy was put to the vote which was then abandoned, and the board has now been asked to agree on the policy without a vote (which will not happen as there is no consensus). The responsibility for organising the event has been delegated to the organising team, so I feel that it is up to you to choose what you want to do. Thanks for taking the time to organise the event and deal with the issues that have arisen. I hope that they will not distract you for much longer. > -- > Alexandre Franke > -- > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/board-list > > From time to time confidential and sensitive information will be discussed > on this mailing list. Please take care to mark confidential information as > confidential, and do not redistribute this information without permission. ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > Something I've been wondering in the last few days, can we concretely > expel someone from the conference if they keep coming back in spite of > us telling them they are no longer welcome and have been expelled? I'm > afraid we won't be able to do much apart from kicking them out over and > over when we notice they are present :( As you guessed, in such a case there is not much we can do. We could hire a bouncer but I hope everyone finds this as ridiculous as I do. If someone is really creating problems, we can (and should) call the police. So far I've only had time to reply to the technical questions that arised (phone numbers…) and not to the practical side of implementing a policy. Let me fix this. To begin with, I reverted the change by Pascal, as we didn't reach a consensus and publishing the policy Marina suggested is not ok. (Also I think some information I had on the page were missing, such as the number for SOS médecin) I've discussed this in private one-to-one conversations with several organization team members and everyone is uncomfortable with having such a policy. There are potential harassment victim in this group (female, black, fat…). The general feeling is that having a policy such as the long one Marina wrote: * intimidates everyone and establishes a climate of fear * is not more efficient than a shorter one such as the current https://www.guadec.org/policy/ version * encourages "tl;dr" (too long; didn't read) behaviour To be frank, I feel that pushing a lengthy policy is a form of harassment in itself and I'm getting tired of it. I see that board-list is CCed in this entire thread and I'm not sure I get the reason. If the board is the body that makes this decision, then we'll of course comply with the decision. Just know that the organization team disapproves the proposed policy. -- Alexandre Franke ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hey, On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:49:10AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the code of conduct > support team members may [...] expel the participant from the > conference with no refund for repeat or serious offense. Something I've been wondering in the last few days, can we concretely expel someone from the conference if they keep coming back in spite of us telling them they are no longer welcome and have been expelled? I'm afraid we won't be able to do much apart from kicking them out over and over when we notice they are present :( Christophe pgpTh9rGxoyd7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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 07, 2014 at 10:51:21PM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > >> > >> Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other > >> types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added. > >> E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not > >> appropriate for any conference venue, including talks" > > > > This is a common concern in some circles yes. What we seem to be doing > > here is assuming people are going to do bad (ie are going to be jerks), > > and to avoid this, we have to put ourselves in the position of censors. > > People will sometimes act as jerks either because they feel like it or > because they don't realize how their actions affect others. This > happens at technical conferences often. It happens at GUADEC rarely, > but there have been a few incidents (most of them private). Uh? I was talking about explicitly banning public display of sexual imagery in the anti-harassment policy, I don't think these private incindents had something to do with this, did they? > Having a policy doesn't mean we assume everyone will be a jerk, but we > want to deter or know how to deal with a jerk-like behavior because it > might happen. Well, public display of sexual imagery is not the only way of being a jerk, I'm not talking about the anti-harassement policy as a whole here. I can find plenty of offensive pictures which are not banned by the policy (for example, Muhammad pictures, especially caricatures would be a *very* bad thing to do). Why is the policy not banning that because some people could be jerks? Also, I remember https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-moXUALZtw caused some issues in a past GUADEC, but still we do nothing about this in the policy, and we try to prevent potential abuse of sexual imagery? > > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/EMACS_virgins_joke > > > I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be doing that. > > > > I'd rather assume people will do good, tell them we trust them to behave > > appropriately, and possibly reminding them to be wary of others' > > sensibilities. This seems much more positive to me and more rewarding > > for our community. > > We assume people will be good and abide by the anti-harassment policy. > We have people of different genders and from different cultures > attending, which is why spelling out what it means to behave > appropriately is helpful. This was again in the context of the ban of sexual imagery, I was not talking about the anti-harassment policy as a whole. > > > > > Also, how do we define 'sexual'? Is > > http://www.quandjeseraigrande.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pub-Galeries-Lafayette-Jean-Paul-Goude1.jpg > > some sexual imagery which should be banned? (NB: this > > is an ad campaign from a big French department store prominently > > visible in Paris metro). Content which is OK in the US would probably be > > frowned upon/unsettling from some more 'traditionalist' countries or > > background. How do we set the bar here? > > I think we can set the bar to exclude images that convey a sexual > message, because they are off-topic for GUADEC. What is "a sexual message"? Who will decide that? For some muslim, women's hair must be covered, or even most of the face ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam ) « The principal aim of the Muslim veil is to hide that which men find sexually attractive. ». > GUADEC is a private event, and we can decide what is appropriate for > it. If sexual images or language are not appropriate for it and we ask > people not to use them, then using them is a harassing act. You can > learn more about why people often feel that these types of images and > language are harassing at technical conferences at > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources#Sexualized_environment > This is what I was saying at the beginning, I understand that sexualized images are a concern for 'geek feminists'. I expect that different kind of images will be a problem if there were vocal 'black geeks' or 'jewish geeks' communities. I'm also not saying sexualized imagery is ok, just that I don't see why this should be explicitly listed in that policy. Christophe pgpP6xGKW26q_.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hey, On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:08:52PM -0400, Hashem Nasarat wrote: > Marina, > Thank you for working on this! > > > Christophe, > Many of the concerns you brought up have been responded to in the > following FAQ: > http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq#cocfaqnegative > http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq#cocfaqcensorship I don't want to keep this discussion going, but: - regarding the first faq item you link to, I agree that having a formal list of things that are considered as bad, plus some sanctions when someone does something wrong is good. This does not mean we cannot use a more positive phrasing before listing what is prohibited, and the sanctions if something were to go wrong - regarding the 2nd faq item, I did not say either that having this antiharassment policy was censorship, I specifically complained about the arbitrary ban on sexualized imagery which was added in the antiharassment policy, while it's only vaguely related to harassment. Christophe pgp9BqbiiDtSG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hi, Pascal, thank you for updating the web page. Please put the updated version of the policy below at https://www.guadec.org/conduct instead. Fabiana, your suggestion for the registration form text sounds good. I removed "GUADEC" and added "for everyone" to it because I think it's important to emphasize. Upon further discussion with the board, below is an updated text that renames the policy into "Code of conduct", factors out sexual images and language and exclusionary comments not directed at someone in particular into inappropriate behavior, and explains that this behavior can be harassing to some people. It also refers people to code of conduct support team members for reporting any incidents. I used PyCon's code of conduct and a sample code of conduct as further examples. https://us.pycon.org/2014/about/code-of-conduct/ http://confcodeofconduct.com/ I created https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2014/CodeOfConduct Please add yourself to the code of conduct support team there if you are willing to help with handling any incidents. I also posted the enforcement policy on that page. Thanks, Marina Short version for the registration form: We plan for a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please confirm that you agree with our code of conduct. Short version for the front page: GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our code of conduct. Code of conduct GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME contributors often make friends and resolve to come to the next GUADEC. GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to any of the above qualities, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks. Sexist, racist, or other exclusionary comments or jokes are not appropriate for GUADEC. Such content and remarks can be harassing to people by making them feel excluded by other attendees. Participants asked to stop any harassing or inappropriate behavior are expected to comply immediately. Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the code of conduct. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the code of conduct support team members may issue a warning for an unintentional or minor offense or expel the participant from the conference with no refund for repeat or serious offense. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, or anyone else on the code of conduct support team. These people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. Code of conduct support team members will be able to address the harassing or inappropriate behavior with the offender, provide escorts, contact local law enforcement, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance. We expect participants to follow these rules at all conference venues and conference-related social events. Contact information: Alexandre Franke +33 368 910 123, alexandre.franke at NO SPAM gmail DOT com Marina Zhurakhinskaya marinazik at NO SPAM gmail DOT com Code of contuct support team (link to https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2014/CodeOfConduct#Support_team ) Emergency number for police, fire department, or ambulance: 112 24/7 medical assistance: “SOS médecin” +33 388 75 75 75 Taxi company: "Taxi 13" +33 388 36 13 13 Code of conduct enforcement policy for volunteers and code of conduct support team members We recognize that many of the volunteers are new to the GNOME community and conference organization, and might not feel certain about what to do in addressing observed or reported harassment or inaprropriate behavior. If you are not sure how to address an incident which violates the code of conduct, please find Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, or anyone else on the code of conduct support team. They will be introduced at the opening for the conference. In general, consult with other volunteers and code of conduct support team members when possible, but act when necessary. Warnings Any code of conduct
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On 8 July 2014 03:57, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME > contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the > next one. > > GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly conference > experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and > expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body > size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of > conference participants in any form. Harassment includes offensive > verbal comments related to any of the above qualities, sexual images > in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, > harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or > other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual > attention. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any > conference venue, including talks. Participants asked to stop any > harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. > > Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the > anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use > sexualized images, activities, or other material. > > If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference > organizers may issue a warning for an unintentional or minor offense > or expel the participant from the conference with no refund for repeat > or serious offense. If you are being harassed, notice that someone > else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately > contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, anyone on the GUADEC > organizing team, or anyone on the GNOME board of directors. These > people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and > conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. > > Conference organizers and the GNOME Foundation directors will be able > to address the harassing behavior with the offender, provide escorts, > contact local law enforcement, or otherwise assist those experiencing > harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value > your attendance. > > We expect participants to follow these rules at all conference venues > and conference-related social events. > > Countact information: > Alexandre Franke +33 368 910 123, alexandre.franke at NO SPAM gmail DOT > com > Marina Zhurakhinskaya marinazik at NO SPAM gmail DOT com > Emergency number for police, fire department, or ambulance: 112 > [Local emergency and non-emergency medical (e.g., urgent care, day > clinic)] > Taxi "Taxi 13": +33 388 361 313 I updated https://www.guadec.org/policy/ with this (and the emergency medical contact which was there, and didn't add a non urgent one) ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
I believe the copy for the form is way too long. I'd like to keep it at 100 characters tops. Here's a suggestion: We plan GUADEC for a safe and friendly conference experience. Please confirm that you agree with our anti-harassment policy. - Fabiana On Jul 8, 2014 4:58 AM, "Marina Zhurakhinskaya" wrote: > Hi Pascal, > > Yes, this works! Combined with my earlier condensed version it ends up > being: > > > > Anti-harassment policy: > > GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME > contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the > next one. > > GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly conference > experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and > expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body > size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of > conference participants in any form. Harassment includes offensive > verbal comments related to any of the above qualities, sexual images > in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, > harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or > other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual > attention. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any > conference venue, including talks. Participants asked to stop any > harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. > > Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the > anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use > sexualized images, activities, or other material. > > If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference > organizers may issue a warning for an unintentional or minor offense > or expel the participant from the conference with no refund for repeat > or serious offense. If you are being harassed, notice that someone > else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately > contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, anyone on the GUADEC > organizing team, or anyone on the GNOME board of directors. These > people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and > conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. > > Conference organizers and the GNOME Foundation directors will be able > to address the harassing behavior with the offender, provide escorts, > contact local law enforcement, or otherwise assist those experiencing > harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value > your attendance. > > We expect participants to follow these rules at all conference venues > and conference-related social events. > > Countact information: > Alexandre Franke +33 368 910 123, alexandre.franke at NO SPAM gmail > DOT com > Marina Zhurakhinskaya marinazik at NO SPAM gmail DOT com > Emergency number for police, fire department, or ambulance: 112 > [Local emergency and non-emergency medical (e.g., urgent care, day > clinic)] > Taxi "Taxi 13": +33 388 361 313 > > > > We can also change the short versions: > > > > Short version for the registration form: > > GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for > everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy > and confirm that you agree to abide by it. > > > > Short version for the front page: > > GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for > everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy. > > > > Thanks, > Marina > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Pascal Terjan wrote: > > On 7 July 2014 05:44, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > >> GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME > >> contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the > >> next one. The behaviors outlined in this policy do not commonly > >> happen, but are spelled out to help ensure all attendees have the same > >> expectation of a safe and friendly environment. > > > > This helps, but what about merging it into the next one to make things > > more positive? > > Like insisting that we want to keep the environment friendly for > > everyone, and as part of it we don't tolerate harassment, then give > > the specific examples and finish on the punishment. > > > > I feel it would be much less aggressive like I organized it below (I > > believe I didn't drop anything that wasn't repeated but may have made > > some mistake while moving things around): > > > > = > > > > GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME > > contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the > > next one. > > > > GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly environment for > > everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual > > orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or > > religion. We do not tolerate haras
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya > wrote: >> Hi, > > Hi, > >> Alexandre, could you please provide any available local numbers for >> law enforcement, sexual assault hot line, emergency and non-emergency >> medical, and a taxi company. I can be a female contact for reporting >> harassment, however, I won't have a phone working locally and do not >> speak French, so someone local would be better. > > 112 is the "generic" emergency number (gives access to a hotline that > dispatches as appropriate to the police, the fire dept. and > ambulances). > I'm not sure what kind of contact I should give for non-emergency > medical. Can you give me anything more specific? Thanks for all the numbers! I think for non-emergency medical, providing a name, address, and number of a nearby 24 hour (if available) clinic or emergency room would work best. E.g. some place a person might go if they require medical attention, but can get a ride there on their own. > Taxi company: "taxi 13" +33 388 36 13 13 > I don't have a local female contact available. > > My number is +33 368 910 123. (This number has been created just for > GUADEC, already works, and calls get to my mobile phone) > > -- > Alexandre Franke > ___ > guadec-list mailing list > guadec-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hi Pascal, Yes, this works! Combined with my earlier condensed version it ends up being: Anti-harassment policy: GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the next one. GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to any of the above qualities, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may issue a warning for an unintentional or minor offense or expel the participant from the conference with no refund for repeat or serious offense. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, anyone on the GUADEC organizing team, or anyone on the GNOME board of directors. These people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. Conference organizers and the GNOME Foundation directors will be able to address the harassing behavior with the offender, provide escorts, contact local law enforcement, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance. We expect participants to follow these rules at all conference venues and conference-related social events. Countact information: Alexandre Franke +33 368 910 123, alexandre.franke at NO SPAM gmail DOT com Marina Zhurakhinskaya marinazik at NO SPAM gmail DOT com Emergency number for police, fire department, or ambulance: 112 [Local emergency and non-emergency medical (e.g., urgent care, day clinic)] Taxi "Taxi 13": +33 388 361 313 We can also change the short versions: Short version for the registration form: GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy and confirm that you agree to abide by it. Short version for the front page: GUADEC is dedicated to a safe and friendly conference experience for everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy. Thanks, Marina On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Pascal Terjan wrote: > On 7 July 2014 05:44, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: >> GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME >> contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the >> next one. The behaviors outlined in this policy do not commonly >> happen, but are spelled out to help ensure all attendees have the same >> expectation of a safe and friendly environment. > > This helps, but what about merging it into the next one to make things > more positive? > Like insisting that we want to keep the environment friendly for > everyone, and as part of it we don't tolerate harassment, then give > the specific examples and finish on the punishment. > > I feel it would be much less aggressive like I organized it below (I > believe I didn't drop anything that wasn't repeated but may have made > some mistake while moving things around): > > = > > GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME > contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the > next one. > > GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly environment for > everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual > orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or > religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in > any form. > > Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, > gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, > physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in > public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing > photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other > events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual > attention. > > Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:13:53AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Christophe Fergeau >> wrote: >> > In my mind, there is not much point in talking about a anti-harassment >> > policy if it's not going to be enforced. >> >> "organizers will help ensure the harassment stops if it does occur" is >> about enforcing the policy. > > Sorry, I was not talking about the policy being discussed, what I meant > is that if we say we have an anti-harassment policy, it should be > implicit that it's going to be enforced in case of problems. > >> >> > >> >> Sexual language and imagery create a sexualized environment, which is >> >> uncomfortable to some people >> > >> > Should I make a list of things that make me uncomfortable so that we add >> > them to the policy? It's also quite easy to find non-sexual images that >> > will make a lot of people very uncomfortable, even sick but which are >> > not forbidden by this policy (some parts of 4chan are a good source for >> > that). >> >> Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other >> types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added. >> E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not >> appropriate for any conference venue, including talks" > > This is a common concern in some circles yes. What we seem to be doing > here is assuming people are going to do bad (ie are going to be jerks), > and to avoid this, we have to put ourselves in the position of censors. People will sometimes act as jerks either because they feel like it or because they don't realize how their actions affect others. This happens at technical conferences often. It happens at GUADEC rarely, but there have been a few incidents (most of them private). Having a policy doesn't mean we assume everyone will be a jerk, but we want to deter or know how to deal with a jerk-like behavior because it might happen. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/EMACS_virgins_joke > I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be doing that. > > I'd rather assume people will do good, tell them we trust them to behave > appropriately, and possibly reminding them to be wary of others' > sensibilities. This seems much more positive to me and more rewarding > for our community. We assume people will be good and abide by the anti-harassment policy. We have people of different genders and from different cultures attending, which is why spelling out what it means to behave appropriately is helpful. > > Also, how do we define 'sexual'? Is > http://www.quandjeseraigrande.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pub-Galeries-Lafayette-Jean-Paul-Goude1.jpg > some sexual imagery which should be banned? (NB: this > is an ad campaign from a big French department store prominently > visible in Paris metro). Content which is OK in the US would probably be > frowned upon/unsettling from some more 'traditionalist' countries or > background. How do we set the bar here? I think we can set the bar to exclude images that convey a sexual message, because they are off-topic for GUADEC. > > > All in all, I'm not a big fan of the whole policy as it is now, which > roughly tells people "we suspect you all of being potential offenders, > we are warning you, we are watching you and will take action!". This is > definitely not friendly, and not how I'd like to be welcomed when coming > to a real-life party. However this is similar to what we had in A > Coruña, and I understand it can be reassuring to some people, especially > if they encounter some issues at the conference. > I'm not ok with adding some arbitrary censorship in there and pretend > it's related to anti-harassment. GUADEC is a private event, and we can decide what is appropriate for it. If sexual images or language are not appropriate for it and we ask people not to use them, then using them is a harassing act. You can learn more about why people often feel that these types of images and language are harassing at technical conferences at http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources#Sexualized_environment > > Christophe Marina ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On 7 July 2014 05:44, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME > contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the > next one. The behaviors outlined in this policy do not commonly > happen, but are spelled out to help ensure all attendees have the same > expectation of a safe and friendly environment. This helps, but what about merging it into the next one to make things more positive? Like insisting that we want to keep the environment friendly for everyone, and as part of it we don't tolerate harassment, then give the specific examples and finish on the punishment. I feel it would be much less aggressive like I organized it below (I believe I didn't drop anything that wasn't repeated but may have made some mistake while moving things around): = GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the next one. GUADEC is dedicated to providing a safe and friendly environment for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may issue a warning for an unintentional or minor offence or expel the participant from the conference with no refund for repeat or serious offence. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, anyone on the GUADEC organizing team, or anyone on the GNOME board of directors. These people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. = ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Marina, Thank you for working on this! Christophe, Many of the concerns you brought up have been responded to in the following FAQ: http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq#cocfaqnegative http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq#cocfaqcensorship ___ 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 7, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > I realized that we should also make it more clear who are the > conference organizers who can handle situations that violate the > anti-harassment policy. Should it be all the people on the GUADEC team > listed at https://wiki.gnome.org/GUADEC/2014/Team ? Absolutely not. People that have been kind enough to volunteer for a given task shouldn't be bothered for anything else. Some of these people are not even GNOME community members and just offered to give a hand with something they knew they could handle. Some might not even attend the event. If you want to put people names on a page for this purpose, please ask them first if they agree, especially if you expect them to enforce a policy. -- 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 07, 2014 at 10:13:53AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > In my mind, there is not much point in talking about a anti-harassment > > policy if it's not going to be enforced. > > "organizers will help ensure the harassment stops if it does occur" is > about enforcing the policy. Sorry, I was not talking about the policy being discussed, what I meant is that if we say we have an anti-harassment policy, it should be implicit that it's going to be enforced in case of problems. > > > > >> Sexual language and imagery create a sexualized environment, which is > >> uncomfortable to some people > > > > Should I make a list of things that make me uncomfortable so that we add > > them to the policy? It's also quite easy to find non-sexual images that > > will make a lot of people very uncomfortable, even sick but which are > > not forbidden by this policy (some parts of 4chan are a good source for > > that). > > Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other > types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added. > E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not > appropriate for any conference venue, including talks" This is a common concern in some circles yes. What we seem to be doing here is assuming people are going to do bad (ie are going to be jerks), and to avoid this, we have to put ourselves in the position of censors. I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be doing that. I'd rather assume people will do good, tell them we trust them to behave appropriately, and possibly reminding them to be wary of others' sensibilities. This seems much more positive to me and more rewarding for our community. Also, how do we define 'sexual'? Is http://www.quandjeseraigrande.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pub-Galeries-Lafayette-Jean-Paul-Goude1.jpg some sexual imagery which should be banned? (NB: this is an ad campaign from a big French department store prominently visible in Paris metro). Content which is OK in the US would probably be frowned upon/unsettling from some more 'traditionalist' countries or background. How do we set the bar here? All in all, I'm not a big fan of the whole policy as it is now, which roughly tells people "we suspect you all of being potential offenders, we are warning you, we are watching you and will take action!". This is definitely not friendly, and not how I'd like to be welcomed when coming to a real-life party. However this is similar to what we had in A Coruña, and I understand it can be reassuring to some people, especially if they encounter some issues at the conference. I'm not ok with adding some arbitrary censorship in there and pretend it's related to anti-harassment. Christophe pgpNBimTZIHda.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ guadec-list mailing list guadec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > Hi, Hi, > Alexandre, could you please provide any available local numbers for > law enforcement, sexual assault hot line, emergency and non-emergency > medical, and a taxi company. I can be a female contact for reporting > harassment, however, I won't have a phone working locally and do not > speak French, so someone local would be better. 112 is the "generic" emergency number (gives access to a hotline that dispatches as appropriate to the police, the fire dept. and ambulances). I'm not sure what kind of contact I should give for non-emergency medical. Can you give me anything more specific? Taxi company: "taxi 13" +33 388 36 13 13 I don't have a local female contact available. My number is +33 368 910 123. (This number has been created just for GUADEC, already works, and calls get to my mobile phone) -- 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 7, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:44:15AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Christophe Fergeau
>> wrote:
>> > Hey Marina,
>> >
>> > Thanks for coming up with this detailed policy.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:08:07AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
>> >> Having a specific and actionable anti-harassment policy is important
>> >> for making the conference a safer space for everyone.
>> >
>> > Fwiw, I disagree with the wording, especially the "specific and
>> > actionable" and "safer for everyone".
>>
>> Specific policy spells out behaviors of common concern and lets people
>> know these are not acceptable at the conference. Actionable means that
>> people enforcing the policy know what to do if a violation occurs.
>> These both have to be clear ahead of time to minimize the uncertainty
>> during the event. The policy makes the event a safer space for
>> everyone because it helps people understand what are unacceptable
>> behaviors,
>
> Except that the organizers/the board can decide by themselves that
> something not listed in the document is to be considered as harassment
> anyway...
>
>> so that they avoid them, and also provides support
>> structures to the victims in terms of knowing who to talk to and
>> knowing that organizers will help ensure the harassment stops if it
>> does occur.
>
> In my mind, there is not much point in talking about a anti-harassment
> policy if it's not going to be enforced.
"organizers will help ensure the harassment stops if it does occur" is
about enforcing the policy.
>
>> "GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME
>> contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the
>> next one. The behaviors outlined in this policy do not commonly
>> happen, but are spelled out to help ensure all attendees have the same
>> expectation of a safe and friendly environment."
>
> Sounds quite positive, though I'd drop the "safe".
Anti-harassment policy is about making the event emotionally and
physically safer for attendees, so I think it's important to keep that
expectation listed.
>
>> Sexual language and imagery create a sexualized environment, which is
>> uncomfortable to some people
>
> Should I make a list of things that make me uncomfortable so that we add
> them to the policy? It's also quite easy to find non-sexual images that
> will make a lot of people very uncomfortable, even sick but which are
> not forbidden by this policy (some parts of 4chan are a good source for
> that).
Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other
types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added.
E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not
appropriate for any conference venue, including talks"
>
>> and can make other harassing behavior
>> seem permissible.
>
> I think the policy is already abundantly clear that any unwanted
> sexually-tainted attention is not welcome.
>
>> The word harassment in the name of the policy is used here in a broad
>> sense to include the actions that can make someone uncomfortable, but
>> are not directed towards anyone in particular.
>
> For what it's worth this is news to me, and I don't think it achieves
> what you describe. It bans one very specific item which will make some
> people uncomfortable, it does not even try to address non-sexual things
> (religion, blood, meat, politics, ...) which could also make some people
> uncomfortable. I understand why it's here, especially given where it
> comes from, but I don't think this belongs in an anti-harassment policy,
> at least not this way.
>
>> > The rest of the text seems good to me, longer though still very
>> > official, and potentially scary ("may I get in trouble if I make this
>> > not politically correct joke to this person I've started to know a bit
>> > better since the beginning of GUADEC? let's be safe and boring, just in
>> > case").
>>
>> Making jokes that are funny at the expense of other people and seeing
>> whether your new friends find them funny or offensive is in fact not a
>> good idea.
>
> You have added the "at the expense of other people" part when answering,
> I did not mention that in my email.
Not politically correct jokes are usually ones made at the expense of
other people or groups of people.
>
>>
>> We can make the sentence about consequences more clear in the policy,
>> as following:
>
> Well, if people get there, they will have already been subjected to the
> very official and legal sounding tone of the policy, which is what can
> make the policy a bit scary and chilly imo.
We added a friendly first paragraph now :).
> Since the policy is trying
> to be extensive, people will be inclined to self-censorship even for
> behaviour that would not be an issue at all, even more so for newcomers
> who don't know 'us' very well yet. I was not really suggesting changing
> the paragraph about the
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 12:44:15AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > Hey Marina,
> >
> > Thanks for coming up with this detailed policy.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:08:07AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
> >> Having a specific and actionable anti-harassment policy is important
> >> for making the conference a safer space for everyone.
> >
> > Fwiw, I disagree with the wording, especially the "specific and
> > actionable" and "safer for everyone".
>
> Specific policy spells out behaviors of common concern and lets people
> know these are not acceptable at the conference. Actionable means that
> people enforcing the policy know what to do if a violation occurs.
> These both have to be clear ahead of time to minimize the uncertainty
> during the event. The policy makes the event a safer space for
> everyone because it helps people understand what are unacceptable
> behaviors,
Except that the organizers/the board can decide by themselves that
something not listed in the document is to be considered as harassment
anyway...
> so that they avoid them, and also provides support
> structures to the victims in terms of knowing who to talk to and
> knowing that organizers will help ensure the harassment stops if it
> does occur.
In my mind, there is not much point in talking about a anti-harassment
policy if it's not going to be enforced.
> "GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME
> contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the
> next one. The behaviors outlined in this policy do not commonly
> happen, but are spelled out to help ensure all attendees have the same
> expectation of a safe and friendly environment."
Sounds quite positive, though I'd drop the "safe".
> Sexual language and imagery create a sexualized environment, which is
> uncomfortable to some people
Should I make a list of things that make me uncomfortable so that we add
them to the policy? It's also quite easy to find non-sexual images that
will make a lot of people very uncomfortable, even sick but which are
not forbidden by this policy (some parts of 4chan are a good source for
that).
> and can make other harassing behavior
> seem permissible.
I think the policy is already abundantly clear that any unwanted
sexually-tainted attention is not welcome.
> The word harassment in the name of the policy is used here in a broad
> sense to include the actions that can make someone uncomfortable, but
> are not directed towards anyone in particular.
For what it's worth this is news to me, and I don't think it achieves
what you describe. It bans one very specific item which will make some
people uncomfortable, it does not even try to address non-sexual things
(religion, blood, meat, politics, ...) which could also make some people
uncomfortable. I understand why it's here, especially given where it
comes from, but I don't think this belongs in an anti-harassment policy,
at least not this way.
> > The rest of the text seems good to me, longer though still very
> > official, and potentially scary ("may I get in trouble if I make this
> > not politically correct joke to this person I've started to know a bit
> > better since the beginning of GUADEC? let's be safe and boring, just in
> > case").
>
> Making jokes that are funny at the expense of other people and seeing
> whether your new friends find them funny or offensive is in fact not a
> good idea.
You have added the "at the expense of other people" part when answering,
I did not mention that in my email.
>
> We can make the sentence about consequences more clear in the policy,
> as following:
Well, if people get there, they will have already been subjected to the
very official and legal sounding tone of the policy, which is what can
make the policy a bit scary and chilly imo. Since the policy is trying
to be extensive, people will be inclined to self-censorship even for
behaviour that would not be an issue at all, even more so for newcomers
who don't know 'us' very well yet. I was not really suggesting changing
the paragraph about the consequences.
Christophe
pgpdkcXz0X2sK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
guadec-list mailing list
guadec-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > Hey Marina, > > Thanks for coming up with this detailed policy. > > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:08:07AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: >> Having a specific and actionable anti-harassment policy is important >> for making the conference a safer space for everyone. > > Fwiw, I disagree with the wording, especially the "specific and > actionable" and "safer for everyone". Specific policy spells out behaviors of common concern and lets people know these are not acceptable at the conference. Actionable means that people enforcing the policy know what to do if a violation occurs. These both have to be clear ahead of time to minimize the uncertainty during the event. The policy makes the event a safer space for everyone because it helps people understand what are unacceptable behaviors, so that they avoid them, and also provides support structures to the victims in terms of knowing who to talk to and knowing that organizers will help ensure the harassment stops if it does occur. > >> Below, I adapted the anti-harassment policy and enforcement guidelines >> from >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy >> for GUADEC. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for further >> modifications. >> >> Alexandre, could you please provide any available local numbers for >> law enforcement, sexual assault hot line, emergency and non-emergency >> medical, and a taxi company. > > I'm not sure these local hot lines (if they exist) will be able to deal > with English speakers (to be checked). We can say that this resource (if one exists) is only available in French. > >> I can be a female contact for reporting >> harassment, however, I won't have a phone working locally and do not >> speak French, so someone local would be better. >> >> Thanks, >> Marina >> >> >> >> Short version for the registration form: >> >> GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for >> everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy >> and confirm that you agree to abide by it. >> >> >> >> Short version for the front page: >> >> GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for >> everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy. > > I still prefer FOSDEM's version when we want something short (though I > don't like 'jerk'). Something longer and more official sounding can have > a chilling effect on well-meaning people, especially new contributors. New contributors come from a variety of backgrounds, and it's both good to set the expectations about what is the acceptable behavior and let people know who they can talk to if they encounter any behavior that makes them uncomfortable. We could possibly have an introduction paragraph like this: "GUADEC is a welcoming and friendly event, during which GNOME contributors often become friends and make resolves to come to the next one. The behaviors outlined in this policy do not commonly happen, but are spelled out to help ensure all attendees have the same expectation of a safe and friendly environment." > >> >> >> >> Anti-harassment policy: >> >> GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for >> everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual >> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or >> religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in >> any form. > >> Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any >> conference venue, including talks. > > I understand we don't want sexual imagery in talks, however this > sentence is not really related to harassment imo. Sexual language and imagery create a sexualized environment, which is uncomfortable to some people and can make other harassing behavior seem permissible. The word harassment in the name of the policy is used here in a broad sense to include the actions that can make someone uncomfortable, but are not directed towards anyone in particular. > >> Conference participants violating >> these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference without >> a refund at the discretion of the conference organizers. >> >> Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, >> gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, >> physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in >> public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing >> photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other >> events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual >> attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are >> expected to comply immediately. >> >> Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the >> anti-harassment policy. > >> In particular, exhibitors should not use >> sexualized images, activities, or oth
Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hey Marina,
Thanks for coming up with this detailed policy.
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 01:08:07AM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
> Having a specific and actionable anti-harassment policy is important
> for making the conference a safer space for everyone.
Fwiw, I disagree with the wording, especially the "specific and
actionable" and "safer for everyone".
> Below, I adapted the anti-harassment policy and enforcement guidelines
> from
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy
> for GUADEC. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for further
> modifications.
>
> Alexandre, could you please provide any available local numbers for
> law enforcement, sexual assault hot line, emergency and non-emergency
> medical, and a taxi company.
I'm not sure these local hot lines (if they exist) will be able to deal
with English speakers (to be checked).
> I can be a female contact for reporting
> harassment, however, I won't have a phone working locally and do not
> speak French, so someone local would be better.
>
> Thanks,
> Marina
>
>
>
> Short version for the registration form:
>
> GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for
> everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy
> and confirm that you agree to abide by it.
>
>
>
> Short version for the front page:
>
> GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for
> everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy.
I still prefer FOSDEM's version when we want something short (though I
don't like 'jerk'). Something longer and more official sounding can have
a chilling effect on well-meaning people, especially new contributors.
>
>
>
> Anti-harassment policy:
>
> GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for
> everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual
> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or
> religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in
> any form.
> Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any
> conference venue, including talks.
I understand we don't want sexual imagery in talks, however this
sentence is not really related to harassment imo.
> Conference participants violating
> these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference without
> a refund at the discretion of the conference organizers.
>
> Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender,
> gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability,
> physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in
> public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing
> photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other
> events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual
> attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are
> expected to comply immediately.
>
> Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the
> anti-harassment policy.
> In particular, exhibitors should not use
> sexualized images, activities, or other material.
Same feeling/comment about this sentence.
The rest of the text seems good to me, longer though still very
official, and potentially scary ("may I get in trouble if I make this
not politically correct joke to this person I've started to know a bit
better since the beginning of GUADEC? let's be safe and boring, just in
case").
Christophe
pgptwnalYjr4R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
guadec-list mailing list
guadec-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
[guadec-list] anti-harassment policy
Hi, Having a specific and actionable anti-harassment policy is important for making the conference a safer space for everyone. Below, I adapted the anti-harassment policy and enforcement guidelines from http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy for GUADEC. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for further modifications. Alexandre, could you please provide any available local numbers for law enforcement, sexual assault hot line, emergency and non-emergency medical, and a taxi company. I can be a female contact for reporting harassment, however, I won't have a phone working locally and do not speak French, so someone local would be better. Thanks, Marina Short version for the registration form: GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy and confirm that you agree to abide by it. Short version for the front page: GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for everyone. Please familiarize yourself with our anti-harassment policy. Anti-harassment policy: GUADEC is dedicated to a harassment-free conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks. Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference without a refund at the discretion of the conference organizers. Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. Exhibitors in the sponsor exhibit space are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the conference with no refund. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please immediately contact Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, or anyone on the GNOME board of directors. These people will be introduced at the opening for the conference and conference volunteers will be able to help you identify one of them. Conference organizers and the GNOME Foundation directors be able to address the harassing behavior with the offender, provide escorts, contact local law enforcement, or otherwise assist those experiencing harassment to feel safe for the duration of the conference. We value your attendance. We expect participants to follow these rules at all conference venues and conference-related social events. Countact information: Alexandre Franke phone, e-mail Marina Zhurakhinskaya e-mail [Local law enforcement] [Local sexual assault hot line] [Local emergency and non-emergency medical (e.g., urgent care, day clinic)] [Local taxi company] Anti-harassment enforcement policy for volunteers, conference organizers, and board members We recognize that many of the volunteers are new to the GNOME community and conference organization, and might not feel certain about what to do in addressing harassment or harassment reports. If you are not sure how to address an incident of harassment, please find Alexandre Franke, Marina Zhurakhinskaya, or anyone on the GNOME board of directors. They will be introduced at the opening for the conference. In general, consult with other volunteers, organizers, or board members when possible, but act when necessary. Warnings Any conference organizer, board member, or volunteer can issue a verbal warning to a participant that their behavior violates the conference's anti-harassment policy. Taking reports When taking a report from someone experiencing harassment you should record what they say and reassure them they are being taken seriously, but avoid making specific promises about what actions the organizers will take. Ask for any other information if the reporter has not volunteered it, such as time and place, but do not pressure them to provide it if they are reluctant. Even if the report lacks important details such as the identity of the person taking the harassing actions, it should still be recorded. If the reporter desires it
