[LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:54:01 +1100

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 07:56 +1000, Sven Dowideit wrote:
> I _thought_ that we, the opensource community had decided that we were
> dismayed that the presence and safeness of women in this community was
> not as normal and unremarkable as their presence on buses.
>
> I presumed that the existence of the anti-harassment policy was an
> attempt to highlight one aspect of issues that are considered to impact
> on that situation, with an implicit hope that it would also improve our
> community for other disproportionately represented groups (and
> redundancy of communication _is_ good).
>
> Women in open source should be as common, empowered and safe, and as
> unremarkable as women on a bus - and right now, they're not.

All this is true. But has absolutely nothing to do with the language or
imagery used in Mark's keynote, and the resulting discussion.

That the policy was interpreted as relevant to Mark's keynote is, in the
opinion of many, a bug in the policy. One which makes it clear that we
need *guidelines* accompanied by common sense, such as LCA always used
to have, and not a policy which attempts to be so comprehensive that it
can be followed 'by the letter'.

Your message, with its emphasised "I _thought_...", could be interpreted
as implying that those who are objecting to the 'bug' in the policy are
inherently *against* the goals that you state. You could not be further
from the truth, and I find it to be a highly disingenuous implication.

It's almost as if we're being accused of witchcraft, and any words we
say in our own defence are being twisted and taken as further proof of
our guilt.

Welcome to New Salem.

-- 
dwmw2
From  jason_at_jasonjgw.net Date: 2 Wed, 2011 Feb
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.150])
	by cavan.codon.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>)
	id 1PkURt-0007hS-Qp
	for mjg59_at_codon.org.uk; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:13 +0000
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from pip.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.83]:34267)
	by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25)
	with esmtp id 1PkURu-0004iz-r2 (Exim 4.72) for mjg59_at_codon.org.uk
	(return-path <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:10 +0000
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.152])
	by pip.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71 #1 (Debian))
	id 1PkURr-0000Rs-KP
	for <mjg59_at_srcf.ucam.org>; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:08 +0000
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: score -1.0 from SpamAssassin-3.3.1-1052462 
 *  0.8 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail
 * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 *      [score: 0.0000]
 *  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
 *      valid
 *  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from lionfish.followtheflow.org ([202.158.218.249]:49214)
	by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (mx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.149]:25)
	with esmtp (csa=unknown) id 1PkURp-0003Nq-Ew (Exim 4.72) for mjg59_at_srcf.ucam.org
	(return-path <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:07 +0000
Received: from localhost.linux.org.au ([127.0.0.1] helo=lionfish.followtheflow.org)
	by lionfish.followtheflow.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>)
	id 1PkUPb-0002X3-Ja; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:33:47 +1100
Received: from ppp203-122-198-234.lns6.adl6.internode.on.net
	([203.122.198.234] helo=jdc.jasonjgw.net)
	by lionfish.followtheflow.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <jason_at_jasonjgw.net>) id 1PkUPZ-0002Wy-Jd
	for chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:33:45 +1100
Received: by jdc.jasonjgw.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 4C099180020DC; Wed,  2 Feb 2011 15:33:43 +1100 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=jasonjgw.net; s=mail;
	t=1296621223; bh=juo8LuKTMfzRYV2eTlymZ6OidoS9v/b1Q40aJhFejYc=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	Content-Type:In-Reply-To;
	b=KJ/Y1Yny1/02oeu4CYSl2ZMDesRYBCtwRb/baZSWqrHXpKNTL8UO82uiX4B+MHs8U
	zo2t60pw3pRl4B0DGX+TNB+2HHDXP63IZSYoIS5WiVDFV4Dlw2E7wZttAj0dXoItWu
	c1bUz4x0hYHHziEFxjg1rkuMam8FmmYD8jl4OWto=
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:33:43 +1100
From: Jason White <jason_at_jasonjgw.net>
To: chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
Message-ID: <20110202043343.GA20337_at_jdc.jasonjgw.net>
References: <1296461607.5278.231.camel_at_russell-laptop>
	<AANLkTinwRZEvX5pADfKqwM_VoCMVTwpu9h46jzWkK9j9_at_mail.gmail.com>
	<1296552412.13656.384.camel_at_russell-laptop>
	<AANLkTi=JnCFoM8w0pexoBm58uEOe2hKaMZ0nVgSLpjwm_at_mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=JnCFoM8w0pexoBm58uEOe2hKaMZ0nVgSLpjwm_at_mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
Reply-To: LCA2011 Delegates Chat <chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>
List-Id: LCA2011 Delegates Chat <chat.lca2011.linux.org.au>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/options/chat>,
	<mailto:chat-request_at_lca2011.linux.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.followtheflow.org/pipermail/chat>
List-Post: <mailto:chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>
List-Help: <mailto:chat-request_at_lca2011.linux.org.au?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/listinfo/chat>,
	<mailto:chat-request_at_lca2011.linux.org.au?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
Errors-To: chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 131.111.8.150
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on cavan.codon.org.uk
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-ASN: AS786 131.111.0.0/16
Subject: Re: [LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:23:21 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cavan.codon.org.uk)
Content-Length: 1063
Valerie Aurora <valerie.aurora_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I'd agree that getting people to read it is a problem. :)
Inevitably it is, just as there are people who assent to contracts without
reading their terms fully, let alone understanding them. I would also hope
that increasing participation by women (and members of other groups who may be
discrimianted against) combined with greater awareness of the issues can
result in cultural change. I don't have rigorous empirical evidence for this,
but I would expect people to be less likely to behave in a violent,
exploitative, discriminatory or prejudiced fashion when they know they're
surrounded by colleagues who overwhelmingly disapprove of such conduct.
Policies certainly help in giving conference organizers means of addressing
transgressions, while offering participants clear guidance as to what is
expected (unfortunately, for some, this isn't obvious).
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
Chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Received on Tue Feb 01 2011 - 09:54:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 19:34:12 GMT