Re: Who made the law?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:10, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote: You're worried about the opinions of those who assume that because a person looks like or has a similar background to another person they must therefore behave the same as that other person? This is like saying that women walking home at night should carry placards saying I'm not a prostitute just because some dumb bastards might think that because some women who are out on the street at night are hookers they all are. I don't think it is saying anything like that. Let me give a story from a different domain to illustrate the kind of thing that I think these statements do. My partner has spent a large chunk of the last five years in a wheelchair or on crutches and unable to cope with stairs. In theory, after the DDA went into law in 2010, she should have had pretty good access to goods and services. In many cases it's completely fine. In many other cases there are minor problems, however well intentioned the people are, that make the experience a minor annoyance or embarrassment. Very occasionally you meet people or organisations that are complete and utter f**king asshats. Those experiences are relatively rare compared to the mediocre/good ones (although still far too common) - but they stand out because they cause a huge amount of hassle and emotional pain. Sometimes, often even, we have the energy and enthusiasm to deal with the latter two categories in appropriate ways. But sometimes you just want to have a nice day out somewhere new and know that you're not going to have any problems. We understand completely that not all hotels are evil. We know from experience that most hotels are going to give a good, or at worst mediocre, experience. But if a hotel has a statement about disabled access, has photos of the lobby that include somebody in a wheelchair, and obviously understands how wheelchair access works on the notes about getting to the hotel - guess which one we're more likely to pick. These statements are a sign on the door that says everybody welcome. They remove the question from peoples heads on whether they will be welcome or not. Removing that question can have a big effect since people are not choosing between an event and nothing - they're choosing between competing events. Cheers, Adrian -- http://quietstars.comadri...@quietstars.comtwitter.com/adrianh t. +44 (0)7752 419080skype adrianjohnhowardpinboard.in/u:adrianh
Re: Who made the law?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:47:47PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. Hi, sorry I'm a little late to this therad. Thank you all for the constructive discussion. I'm going to think for a while before making a decision on this: I want to avoid rushing anything important. I'm happy to listen to everyone's thoughts, either on the list, privately, or in the pub on Thursday. All of us have limited time and energy to put into this group. Let's focus on doing good things. If there's something we should be doing, but we're not, let me know. Tom
Re: Who made the law?
I'd suggest two things ... 1) be excellent to one another - all the best philosophies come from bad 80's, 90's movies, if you need a good movie from that time period, might i suggest the mantra 'save ferris'. 2) what Tom says goes, not an IRC op, not an ex-leader, not anyone else, 'In Tom we trust'. Of course we can also say 'Blame Tom'. 3) Top posting emails, like bow ties are cool! (7.20 tonight). G. p.s. I only suggest 2 of the 3 options. On 1 Sep 2012, at 11:04, Tom Hukins wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:47:47PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. Hi, sorry I'm a little late to this therad. Thank you all for the constructive discussion. I'm going to think for a while before making a decision on this: I want to avoid rushing anything important. I'm happy to listen to everyone's thoughts, either on the list, privately, or in the pub on Thursday. All of us have limited time and energy to put into this group. Let's focus on doing good things. If there's something we should be doing, but we're not, let me know. Tom
Re: Who made the law?
On 31/08/2012 10:39, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: And more explicit rules mostly mean more incentives to game the system. Wikipedia has a policy on not gaming the system [1]. We could have a rule which says No gaming the system. Bill [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAME
Re: Who made the law?
On Saturday, 1 September 2012 at 08:56, William Blunn wrote: On 31/08/2012 10:39, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: And more explicit rules mostly mean more incentives to game the system. We could have a rule which says No gaming the system. I'm not proposing a system, so there's no system to be gamed. I'm proposing a code of conduct which is *simply* a written down version of informing people that we[1] won't put up with the stuff that traditionally (you know, being nice human beings) we wouldn't put up with anyway. We[1] might not put up with stuff that's not explicitly listed too. Anyone who wants to game a code of conduct is on dubious footing, and their grand prize in defeating the code of conduct will be subject to the same arbitrary judgement that they're now at. This isn't a court of law[2] Mark. [1] And by we I obviously mean Tom who makes the decisions about all of this and us lot that will follow them [2] That's not to say laws of the land don't apply here, just that, despite the subject, a code of conduct isn't one.
Re: Who made the law?
On 01/09/2012 12:19, Greg McCarroll wrote: 3) Top posting emails, like bow ties are cool! (7.20 tonight). Best post yet! (read in comic book guy voice) Thanks for the reminder!
Re: Who made the law?
On Saturday, 1 September 2012 at 06:04, Tom Hukins wrote: Thank you all for the constructive discussion. I'm going to think for a while before making a decision on this: I want to avoid rushing anything important. I'm happy to listen to everyone's thoughts, either on the list, privately, or in the pub on Thursday. Tom, I know this is a lot to ask of you, especially as you're right about having a limited time to spend on all of this, but could you if you haven't already would you please watch this year's YAPC::NA keynote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAOxGjNbp_Y It's 40 minutes long, and essentially covers why I think this is important. Mark. (Of course, you should watch Doctor Who first, starting right now on BBC One / BBC One HD)
Re: Who made the law?
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Mark Fowler m...@twoshortplanks.com wrote: Tom, I know this is a lot to ask of you, especially as you're right about having a limited time to spend on all of this, but could you if you haven't already would you please watch this year's YAPC::NA keynote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAOxGjNbp_Y Just watched that a couple of hours ago, excellent stuff.
Re: Who made the law?
Quoting Leo Lapworth l...@cuckoo.org: On 30 August 2012 21:28, Mark Fowler m...@twoshortplanks.com wrote: On Thursday, 30 August 2012 at 14:14, Ash Berlin wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. We don't have one. We should have one. And not just for irc, but for the mailing lists and for real live events. Here, let me write one (or at least steal one.) Here's the nutshell version, stolen from Tim O'Reilly, which was stolen from Flickr. Don’t be creepy. You know the guy. Don't be that guy. Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct 1. Purpose London.pm believes our community should be truly open for everyone. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion,preferred operating system, programming language, or text editor. This code of conduct outlines our expectations for participant behavior as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior. We invite all posters to the mailing list, members of the irc channels, event attendees, London.pm t-shirt wearers and other participants in the London.pm community to help us realise a safe and positive experience for everyone. 2. Expected Behavior Be considerate, respectful, and collaborative. Refrain from demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior, speech, and electronic communication. Be aware that what may be mild banter to you might be perceived as demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior to other members or potential members of the wider London.pm community. Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants. Alert the London.pm leaders (part or present,) or event organisers if you notice a dangerous situation or someone in distress. Participate in an authentic and active way. In doing so, you help to improve the London.pm community. 3. Unacceptable Behavior Unacceptable behaviors include: intimidating, harassing, abusive, discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning conduct on the mailing lists, irc channels and while attending London.pm events and related events. Be aware London.pm venues may be shared with members of the public; please be respectful to all patrons of these locations. Be aware that electronic communications are effectively archived forever and are accessible to the public and therefore become the public face of London.pm. Harassment includes: offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability; inappropriate use of nudity and/or sexual images in public spaces (including presentation slides); deliberate intimidation, stalking or following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. 4. Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior Unacceptable behavior will not be tolerated by anyone associated with the London.pm community. Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately. If a participant engages in unacceptable behavior, the London.pm leaders (past and present,) event organisers, or any person delegated responsibility by the aforementioned may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including permanent expulsion from the event, mailing list or irc channel. 5. What to do if you witness or are subject to unacceptable behavior If you are subject to unacceptable behavior, notice that someone else is being subject to unacceptable behavior, or have any other concerns, please notify a London.pm leader (past or present,) event organiser, or any person delegated to handle this task by the aforementioned as soon as possible. These people will be available to help participants contact law enforcement, and in the case of in-person events contact venue security, to provide escorts, or to otherwise assist those experiencing unacceptable behavior to feel safe for the duration of the event. Members of the London.pm community are encouraged to bring these matters to the attention of the London.pm leaders, event organisers, and delegated representatives rather then dealing with issues solely themselves so matters can be dealt with properly in a manner that does not expose those members to accusations of personal vendettas. Issues of harassment are important, and as such we are keen that issues are seen to be dealt with at a community wide level. 6. Scope We expect all people participating in the London.pm community, be it in person or through electronic communication, to abide by this code of conduct whenever they participate in the London.pm community. 7. Contact info lea...@london.pm.org 8. License
Re: Who made the law?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:27PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. R
Re: Who made the law?
On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:46, Leo Lapworth l...@cuckoo.org wrote: +1 Other than: London.pm leaders (part or present,) should be London.pm leaders (past or present) Again up to current leader - as London.pm is not and never has been a democracy. And I don't think a mental image of Gillian Keith masturbating falls under any of that. Collateral damage maybe. Ho hum.
Re: Who made the law?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:31, Roger Burton West ro...@firedrake.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:27PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. I'm inclined to agree. Some variant on Don't be a dick. If you have to argue about it, you probably are being... ?
Re: Who made the law?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:31:16AM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:27PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. And more explicit rules mostly mean more incentives to game the system. -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) It matters not how grand your plans when they are built on a faulty foundation.(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #19 (Epic))
Re: Who made the law?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:31, Roger Burton West ro...@firedrake.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:27PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. And the problem with that is the dictatorship yesterday was less than benevolent. Check the logs if necessary.
Re: Who made the law?
Are we going a bit too far here with a COC? Were these simply kicks, or actually followed with a ban? Were they prevented from rejoining? Let's remember that this is only IRC. Social friction can naturally happen. If an OP repeatedly makes bad judgements they'll eventually lose that power. -Original Message- From: David Hodgkinson daveh...@gmail.com Sender: london.pm-boun...@london.pm.org Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:41:40 To: London.pm Perl M\[ou\]ngerslondon.pm@london.pm.org Reply-To: London.pm Perl M\[ou\]ngers london.pm@london.pm.org Subject: Re: Who made the law? On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:31, Roger Burton West ro...@firedrake.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:27PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. And the problem with that is the dictatorship yesterday was less than benevolent. Check the logs if necessary.
Re: Who made the law?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:31:16AM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:27PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. won't cover all eventualities I think is nicely confirmed with: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34:34AM +0100, David Hodgkinson wrote: And I don't think a mental image of Gillian Keith masturbating falls under any of that. Collateral damage maybe. Ho hum. That is not exactly something I want to think about, let alone look at. But that might just be me. Nicholas Clark
Re: Who made the law?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:31, Roger Burton West ro...@firedrake.org wrote: My feeling is that this is far too long and offputting. If they have to specify all this in nitpicking detail, it's because they've got people who are trying to game the system and they don't have the guts to throw them out. I'd much rather have a mostly-benevolent dictatorship which is able to treat cases as individual matters than a huge set of rules which still won't cover all eventualities. Having had to deal with a few... issues... with events in the past from the organiser side I just want to point out that these statements aren't just, or even primarily, aimed at preventing the assholes of the world. They're also *very* useful for the folk the assholes hassle. I didn't realise this at first since, y'know, I don't really fit into the category of folk who get hit on during sessions (I kid you not...) They send a strong signal that: 1) The community is not tolerant of assholes. 2) If you have asshole problems the organisers want to know about it, there is a process for dealing with 'em, and they *will* be dealt with. They're a virtual sign on the door that says This place aims to be asshole free. Which makes things easier for folk who've had too many bad experiences to want to bother with places that aren't. They might not prevent assholes, but they do help limit the damage they do to the community. Cheers, Adrian -- http://quietstars.comadri...@quietstars.comtwitter.com/adrianh t. +44 (0)7752 419080skype adrianjohnhowardpinboard.in/u:adrianh
Re: Who made the law?
On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:28, Mark Fowler m...@twoshortplanks.com wrote: Code of Conduct /kick Mark tl;dr
Re: Who made the law?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:16:17AM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote: They're a virtual sign on the door that says This place aims to be asshole free. Which makes things easier for folk who've had too many bad experiences to want to bother with places that aren't. The short version does that. The long version invites people to argue that _their_ particular behaviour isn't assholish.
Re: Who made the law?
On Thursday, 30 August 2012 at 16:28, Mark Fowler wrote: Here's my longer drawn out version, I'm going to attempt to answer a whole bunch of questions on this in one go rather than spreading them out. Q. Regarding the incident that Dave Hodgkinson mentioned? This isn't a reaction to any incident, including this one, and should not be taken as such. I have not commented on that matter. This is a reaction to Dave's question Where is the usage policy? I think we should have one, so I have proposed one. Q. Does London.pm really have a problem with harassment? No! London.pm and the Perl community, compared to the vast majority of Programming and technology communities, is very progressive and a non-offensive place to be. The Perl community and the Perl programming language has and continues to have significant contributions from statistically more diverse range of individuals than the norm in the community industry and London.pm has. I am proud to be part of London.pm and would, without hesitation, recommend it to anyone regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation because I believe that giving us a chance they'll find that it's a welcoming place for everyone. Q. Won't publishing a code of conduct indicate that there's a problem? That London.pm is the kind of place where such a conduct occurs? I'm afraid, through no fault of its own, London.pm _already_ has that image to _outsiders_ that do not have experience of the community directly. This, sadly, is because IT communities at large have gained this reputation. No matter what London.pm is actually like, unless someone external can tell what the social conduct of the group is - which is what a code of conduct is a formal form of - they will assume, or at the very least fear, we are like any other IT community. To be blunt: In my opinion if you're not seen actively as part of the solution then people will assume (rightly or wrongly) that you're complicit with the problem. While self-policing without a code of conduct may in fact work well, it cannot be observed external to the community. A published code of conduct can. Q. If this is a set of _rules_ won't it simply encourage people to game the rules? Wouldn't we be better off with what we have now (i.e. a pretty self policing community with a benevolent dictator that won't put up with bad behaviour) Firstly, I've not stated a set of rules, I've stated a code of conduct. While some people may quibble the semantic differences between the two I'll hope you'll agree that the latter is a lot closer to simply codifying the social expectations that we already have in place. Secondly, I'm not suggesting dismantling or replacing anything that we have already. There's nothing in this code of conduct that seeks to limit or restrict the absolute authority of the London.pm leader to deal with anyone who, in their opinion, who is acting detrimentally to rest of the group in any way he or she feels fit. It's just writing down _some_ of what already happens. Thirdly, it's been suggested that the long version invites people to argue that _their_ particular behaviour isn't boorish. Those people are going to argue anyway, be it the short version, long version, or just the current social conventions, because that's the kind of people they are. Q. Do people really need to be told this? The vast majority of people don't. However, the two groups of people that do are: a) People who are worried that they might be victims of harassment. They need to be reassured - especially when they've only just joined the community and haven't had time to completely integrate and have full knowledge of it - that harassment won't be tolerated and they need to know the procedure to follow if they do have any problem. b) People who have missed the social context (especially new people to the community.) We all know that we modify our behaviour depending on the social context we're in (we might act differently in the office than we do in the pub.) New members of the community can often mistake one social context for another and this can cause accidental offence to other members of the community. The code of conduct can help provide the social context to avoid this mistake (especially the one line version, Don't be creepy. You know that guy, don't be that guy..) Q. Isn't the policy too long? Is anyone going to read that? Probably not the majority of people, no (that's why I included the one line summary after all.) But people _will_ care we have one, and some people will want to have explicitly spelled out what kind of thing is a problem and what they can do if there is a problem. So, any further questions?
Re: Who made the law?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:54, Mark Fowler wrote: Q. Do people really need to be told this? The vast majority of people don't. However, the two groups of people that do are: a) People who are worried that they might be victims of harassment. They need to be reassured - especially when they've only just joined the community and haven't had time to completely integrate and have full knowledge of it - that harassment won't be tolerated and they need to know the procedure to follow if they do have any problem. Exactly. As for b) I don't have any sympathy for people who are kicked out and then go oooh, no one told me about the rules - there shouldn't be any rules telling you how to be a decent person, jerk. Note I have no idea about what happened yesterday on IRC, and that's not what I'm going on about here. From a non-ex-leader and mostly lurker, I think Mark's proposed Code of Conduct is excellent. See also http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment https://adainitiative.org/2012/08/defcon-why-conference-harassment-matters/ Cheers, Pedro
Re: Who made the law?
On 31/08/2012 11:16, Adrian Howard wrote: They might not prevent assholes, but they do help limit the damage they do to the community. Regarding physical meetings/events... I would agree but add that involving local law enforcement only as a last resort is something that has been raised as an issue with some of the *cons - even by prominent linux core contribs! I would suggest that including law enforcement earlier rather than as a last resort would help eliminate the perception that organisers are trying to cover things up. Saying this, I agree that a long list of rules is not required and common sense needs to be applied but there is always an incentive to try and keep it in the family - its just human nature. Jacqui p.s. the one L-pm pub meet I attended (many years ago) was not friendly at all. Never had a reason to try again. Not had problems with LUGs, makerspace, reprap or dog rescues so I don't think it was just shy/retiring me :-)
Re: Who made the law?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:55:44PM +0100, Pedro Figueiredo wrote: On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:54, Mark Fowler wrote: Q. Do people really need to be told this? The vast majority of people don't. However, the two groups of people that do are: a) People who are worried that they might be victims of harassment. They need to be reassured - especially when they've only just joined the community and haven't had time to completely integrate and have full knowledge of it - that harassment won't be tolerated and they need to know the procedure to follow if they do have any problem. Exactly. As for b) I don't have any sympathy for people who are kicked out and then go oooh, no one told me about the rules - there shouldn't be any rules telling you how to be a decent person, jerk. Note I have no idea about what happened yesterday on IRC, and that's not what I'm going on about here. From a non-ex-leader and mostly lurker, I think Mark's proposed Code of Conduct is excellent. See also http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment https://adainitiative.org/2012/08/defcon-why-conference-harassment-matters/ Thanks for posting those links Pedro. I believe Debian has also implemented a similar code of conduct - particularly for conferences. I support the proposal that london.pm have a reasonable Code of Conduct. 1. I believe it *is* reasonable to expect a level of reasonable behaviour, for some values of reasonable, level and behaviour within the Perl community. 2. As was said by an earlier poster, a code of conduct is something that says - if you are getting some kind of harassment or discrimination there are people to talk to and let them know. The code of conduct implies any such matters will at least be heard, and may be acted upon in a prescribed manner. Plaintiff and defendant know what to expect. 3. I haven't seen the logs for the event that sparked this conversation, but someone coming into channel and encountering the drivel that can exist on IRC, will go away with a particular view of that channel which, in the case of a Perl channel, might reflect on the whole Perl community. 4. The rule of benevolent dictatorship did win out. A benevolent dictator decided to kick someone for whatever reason, - no dictator need declare that - and then someone questioned said dictator and then got kicked themselves. In a dictatorship, this is a surprise how exactly? 5. I'm not overly fond of dictators, unless they are *spectacularly* benevolent or they are me. Kind Regards Lesley
Re: Who made the law?
On 31/08/2012 11:54, Mark Fowler wrote: Q. Won't publishing a code of conduct indicate that there's a problem? That London.pm is the kind of place where such a conduct occurs? A. I'm afraid, through no fault of its own, London.pm _already_ has that image to _outsiders_ that do not have experience of the community directly. This, sadly, is because IT communities at large have gained this reputation. You're worried about the opinions of those who assume that because a person looks like or has a similar background to another person they must therefore behave the same as that other person? This is like saying that women walking home at night should carry placards saying I'm not a prostitute just because some dumb bastards might think that because some women who are out on the street at night are hookers they all are. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice
Re: Who made the law?
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:10 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On 31/08/2012 11:54, Mark Fowler wrote: = Q. Won't publishing a code of conduct indicate that there's a problem? That London.pm is the kind of place where such a conduct occurs? A. I'm afraid, through no fault of its own, London.pm _already_ has that image to _outsiders_ that do not have experience of the community directly. This, sadly, is because IT communities at large have gained this reputation. This is like saying that women walking home at night should carry placards saying I'm not a prostitute just because some dumb bastards might think that because some women who are out on the street at night are hookers they all are. No it's not. Mark is talking about an actual existing perception caused by widely prevalent behaviour in the larger IT community/industry (don't make me post links to the sites that collect endless stories of this stuff, you know it happens). You're talking about a hypothetical perception caused by the behaviour of a very small minority.
Re: Who made the law?
On 31/08/2012 20:11, Denny wrote: On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 19:10 +0100, David Cantrell wrote: This is like saying that women walking home at night should carry placards saying I'm not a prostitute just because some dumb bastards might think that because some women who are out on the street at night are hookers they all are. No it's not. Mark is talking about an actual existing perception caused by widely prevalent behaviour in the larger IT community/industry (don't make me post links to the sites that collect endless stories of this stuff, you know it happens). You're talking about a hypothetical perception caused by the behaviour of a very small minority. The reality is that women (and disabled or trans folk) get all sorts of abusive behaviour day and night. Most just ignore it but some folks stand up and highlight what is the tip of an iceberg. IT folk in general have a terrible rep and l-pm will include (at some point) some of these scum. Its how you deal with them that defines what sort of organisation you are. IMHO it appears some here are more interested in looking good than doing good. I prefer to look good by actually doing good.
Who made the law?
Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. At least two people got kicked today, one for what has been traditional banter for the last ten years, and another for questioning that kick. Without agreed guidelines this is arbitrary. Is this what we do these days?
Re: Who made the law?
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. At least two people got kicked today, one for what has been traditional banter for the last ten years, and another for questioning that kick. Without agreed guidelines this is arbitrary. Is this what we do these days? This is always what we have done.
Re: Who made the law?
On Thursday, 30 August 2012 at 14:14, Ash Berlin wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. We don't have one. We should have one. And not just for irc, but for the mailing lists and for real live events. Here, let me write one (or at least steal one.) Here's the nutshell version, stolen from Tim O'Reilly, which was stolen from Flickr. Don’t be creepy. You know the guy. Don't be that guy. Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct 1. Purpose London.pm believes our community should be truly open for everyone. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, preferred operating system, programming language, or text editor. This code of conduct outlines our expectations for participant behavior as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior. We invite all posters to the mailing list, members of the irc channels, event attendees, London.pm t-shirt wearers and other participants in the London.pm community to help us realise a safe and positive experience for everyone. 2. Expected Behavior Be considerate, respectful, and collaborative. Refrain from demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior, speech, and electronic communication. Be aware that what may be mild banter to you might be perceived as demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior to other members or potential members of the wider London.pm community. Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants. Alert the London.pm leaders (part or present,) or event organisers if you notice a dangerous situation or someone in distress. Participate in an authentic and active way. In doing so, you help to improve the London.pm community. 3. Unacceptable Behavior Unacceptable behaviors include: intimidating, harassing, abusive, discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning conduct on the mailing lists, irc channels and while attending London.pm events and related events. Be aware London.pm venues may be shared with members of the public; please be respectful to all patrons of these locations. Be aware that electronic communications are effectively archived forever and are accessible to the public and therefore become the public face of London.pm. Harassment includes: offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability; inappropriate use of nudity and/or sexual images in public spaces (including presentation slides); deliberate intimidation, stalking or following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. 4. Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior Unacceptable behavior will not be tolerated by anyone associated with the London.pm community. Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately. If a participant engages in unacceptable behavior, the London.pm leaders (past and present,) event organisers, or any person delegated responsibility by the aforementioned may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including permanent expulsion from the event, mailing list or irc channel. 5. What to do if you witness or are subject to unacceptable behavior If you are subject to unacceptable behavior, notice that someone else is being subject to unacceptable behavior, or have any other concerns, please notify a London.pm leader (past or present,) event organiser, or any person delegated to handle this task by the aforementioned as soon as possible. These people will be available to help participants contact law enforcement, and in the case of in-person events contact venue security, to provide escorts, or to otherwise assist those experiencing unacceptable behavior to feel safe for the duration of the event. Members of the London.pm community are encouraged to bring these matters to the attention of the London.pm leaders, event organisers, and delegated representatives rather then dealing with issues solely themselves so matters can be dealt with properly in a manner that does not expose those members to accusations of personal vendettas. Issues of harassment are important, and as such we are keen that issues are seen to be dealt with at a community wide level. 6. Scope We expect all people participating in the London.pm community, be it in person or through electronic communication, to abide by this code of conduct whenever they participate in the London.pm community. 7. Contact info lea...@london.pm.org 8. License and attribution Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Adapted from the YAPC::NA community
Re: Who made the law?
On 30 August 2012 21:28, Mark Fowler m...@twoshortplanks.com wrote: On Thursday, 30 August 2012 at 14:14, Ash Berlin wrote: On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Where is the usage policy of #london.pm IRC channel. We don't have one. We should have one. And not just for irc, but for the mailing lists and for real live events. Here, let me write one (or at least steal one.) Here's the nutshell version, stolen from Tim O'Reilly, which was stolen from Flickr. Don’t be creepy. You know the guy. Don't be that guy. Here's my longer drawn out version, stolen from YAPC::NA's code of conduct. Comments on this are genuinely welcome, and I'll leave it to the current London.pm leader to make a call on what exactly we should adopt (if anything) Code of Conduct 1. Purpose London.pm believes our community should be truly open for everyone. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, preferred operating system, programming language, or text editor. This code of conduct outlines our expectations for participant behavior as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior. We invite all posters to the mailing list, members of the irc channels, event attendees, London.pm t-shirt wearers and other participants in the London.pm community to help us realise a safe and positive experience for everyone. 2. Expected Behavior Be considerate, respectful, and collaborative. Refrain from demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior, speech, and electronic communication. Be aware that what may be mild banter to you might be perceived as demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior to other members or potential members of the wider London.pm community. Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants. Alert the London.pm leaders (part or present,) or event organisers if you notice a dangerous situation or someone in distress. Participate in an authentic and active way. In doing so, you help to improve the London.pm community. 3. Unacceptable Behavior Unacceptable behaviors include: intimidating, harassing, abusive, discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning conduct on the mailing lists, irc channels and while attending London.pm events and related events. Be aware London.pm venues may be shared with members of the public; please be respectful to all patrons of these locations. Be aware that electronic communications are effectively archived forever and are accessible to the public and therefore become the public face of London.pm. Harassment includes: offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability; inappropriate use of nudity and/or sexual images in public spaces (including presentation slides); deliberate intimidation, stalking or following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. 4. Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior Unacceptable behavior will not be tolerated by anyone associated with the London.pm community. Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately. If a participant engages in unacceptable behavior, the London.pm leaders (past and present,) event organisers, or any person delegated responsibility by the aforementioned may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including permanent expulsion from the event, mailing list or irc channel. 5. What to do if you witness or are subject to unacceptable behavior If you are subject to unacceptable behavior, notice that someone else is being subject to unacceptable behavior, or have any other concerns, please notify a London.pm leader (past or present,) event organiser, or any person delegated to handle this task by the aforementioned as soon as possible. These people will be available to help participants contact law enforcement, and in the case of in-person events contact venue security, to provide escorts, or to otherwise assist those experiencing unacceptable behavior to feel safe for the duration of the event. Members of the London.pm community are encouraged to bring these matters to the attention of the London.pm leaders, event organisers, and delegated representatives rather then dealing with issues solely themselves so matters can be dealt with properly in a manner that does not expose those members to accusations of personal vendettas. Issues of harassment are important, and as such we are keen that issues are seen to be dealt with at a community wide level. 6. Scope We expect all people participating in the London.pm community, be it in person or through electronic communication, to abide by this code of conduct whenever they participate in the London.pm community. 7. Contact info
