On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Russell Stuart
<russell-humbug_at_stuart.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 18:53 +1000, Sarah Smith wrote:
>> What would you like to recommend to LCA 2012 that they do?
>>
>> Perhaps you have some concrete suggestions?
>
> Sarah, I don't feel I know enough about the topic to supply good
> answers. But I do owe you an answer, so I'll sally forth and hope what
> I say makes some sense.
>
> In my previous post I said I thought the Geek Feminism policy is
> harmful. It actually worse than that. I actually don't think policies
> do much good. I am fairly sure almost nobody reads them (this year
> being perhaps the one spectacular counter example). How on earth is a
> checkbox that links to a page no one reads going to fix the problem?
>
> I also said the awareness created by Geek Feminism when they released
> their policy was a positive thing. That was actually an understatement.
> I think that spike in awareness has done more than any other single
> effort to counter the problem, probably by orders of magnitude. In
> other words, I think awareness that the community recognises the problem
> and willing deal with it is the key.
>
> Which sparks an idea. Perhaps the answer to this problem lies in the
> numerous reports of genuine harassment I saw during the Geek Feminism
> promotion of its policy. I was genuinely taken aback by the shear
> number of them by them, and I noticed many others said they felt the
> same surprise and dismay I did. That this was going on unnoticed by
> most of us is a failure in our community, but it is also an opportunity.
> It doesn't seem like it would be difficult to use these incidents to
> create awareness and to educate people at the same time. The Norin's
> blog post showed us the effect publishing them can have.
>
> Perhaps our current failure is we don't do that. So while I am proud
> that LCA has had a strong anti-harassment policy and I know it has been
> enforced in the past, I only became aware of the details of those
> transgressions once I was admitted into the "LCA circle". Our
> conferences apparently deal with the embarrassment of having someone
> doing socially unacceptable things by revealing as little of it as
> possible. ApacheCon followed that pattern because it was Norin who
> published the incident, not ApacheCon.
>
> At one level this is decidedly odd behaviour from a community that
> usually deals with its problems by discussing them robustly, on open
> forums, just as is happening here. But having sat with you and help
> organise a conference I think I know why. When the inevitable subject
> about how should we handle an actual harassment case came up we all just
> stared at each other blankly for a while. None of us have done this
> sort of thing before, and so none of us had a clue where to start. We
> concocted something of course, something that passes muster on most
> fronts. But one ingredient was noticeably absent: we didn't even
> discuss how we would publicise it.
>
> So if Geek Feminism wants to make a real difference on the harassment
> front, I suggest they help us conferences organisers by giving them a
> sample procedure for handling harassment and thus ensuring each incident
> contributes to lessening the problem.
>
> Here are some suggestions on how this might be done:
>
> 1. Make it plain to all attendees that not only does the conference
> accept harassment reports, they are welcomed.
>
> 2. If an harassment report is received, announce it at the next morning
> muster. There is no need to mention names, but do mention what
> happened, why it was wrong, and how it was dealt with. And after
> mentioning verbally, publish it.
>
> 3. To make all this easy, set the harassment bar high. I know this is
> going is sounding decidedly odd given my previous comments, but I
> think the Geek Feminism policy got it wrong at both ends. It was
> both too restrictive (by labelling things harassment that may not
> be), and yet at the same time too liberal. How could it possibly be
> too liberal? I think the bar should be set by the one LCA keynote
> that has remained burned into my brain since I heard it: Kathy
> Sierra's "Creating Passionate Users". Kathy's key point was "Be
> Nice". In other words Kathy's standard isn't "don't molest each
> other". It is: we expect everyone to be nice to each other, to take
> into account the other person's thoughts and feelings, to respect
> their boundaries.
Hi Russell,
Does this fit the bill?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources
Feel free to take what you want and discard the rest.
> To be honest I don't know if this will work or not, but it looks to have
> a much higher chance of success than a policy no one will read in a
> years time.
Yes, I'd agree that getting people to read it is a problem. :)
-VAL
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
Chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Received on Tue Feb 01 2011 - 19:57:14 GMT