On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Sam Vilain <sam at vilain.net> wrote:
> On 31/01/11 21:13, Russell Stuart wrote:
> > Thirdly, from what I could tell Geek Feminism policy wasn't just about
> > stopping harassment. It was also about forcing open source conferences
> > to adopt the Geek Feminist view on what harassment is.
>
> There is one thing I noticed at this LCA that I haven't noticed before.
>
> The Unicorns were there, and they were there in force.
>
> And I feel that has to be a good thing.
>
>
I certainly agree 100% on that.
But did we see such a less-imbalanced turnout of haecksen this year because
of the implementation of this geek feminism policy? I can't imagine that it
was really a significant factor.
Do we have to keep this policy - which is obviously controversial, flawed,
so vague that it's difficult to actually police in practice, and not
immediately actually required to perform any function that the previous
policy didn't already do - to maintain such a positive less-imbalanced
turnout of haecksen next year? I'm not convinced that it's required.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://lists.followtheflow.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20110201/39220bc1/attachment.htm>
From jason_at_jasonjgw.net Date: 1 Tue, 2011 Feb
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.141])
by cavan.codon.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>)
id 1PkDdM-0000jy-6B
for mjg59_at_codon.org.uk; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:38:56 +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]:32784)
by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25)
with esmtp id 1PkDdM-000865-Re (Exim 4.72) for mjg59_at_codon.org.uk
(return-path <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:38:52 +0000
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.150])
by pip.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71 #1 (Debian))
id 1PkDdM-0004gs-25
for <mjg59_at_srcf.ucam.org>; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:38:52 +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]:42289)
by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (mx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.147]:25)
with esmtp (csa=unknown) id 1PkDdK-0007im-qz (Exim 4.72) for mjg59_at_srcf.ucam.org
(return-path <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>); Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:38:52 +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 1PkDbg-0006gq-Lj; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:37:08 +1100
Received: from ppp203-122-198-113.lns6.adl6.internode.on.net
([203.122.198.113] helo=jdc.jasonjgw.net)
by lionfish.followtheflow.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <jason_at_jasonjgw.net>) id 1PkDbf-0006gj-6X
for chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:37:07 +1100
Received: by jdc.jasonjgw.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id A9A491802CFDA; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:37:04 +1100 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=jasonjgw.net; s=mail;
t=1296556624; bh=1h5EXUS767O2zDKqEaOAAeYFtKgxaWJPlyhaTviXFuE=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
Content-Type:In-Reply-To;
b=dYbba++6CmhriduzIs2vhUo8EKrYGGjyCd38gBUY2waNTOKiELwlMVBoiTIKKfstM
Pce/9LWoiVY3oYuk2Vc/4c80gzFsoG/A4VMsLYgdxAKfBzyTb+66FFdsuJu/oZk2iq
5p9KocXRmDXYtFjg108Zr/kukpa5EOOnUIGWP6Y8=
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:37:04 +1100
From: Jason White <jason_at_jasonjgw.net>
To: chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
Message-ID: <20110201103704.GA16547_at_jdc.jasonjgw.net>
References: <1296461607.5278.231.camel_at_russell-laptop>
<AANLkTi=Pq4KW9toANUCC4pVUOWWK-7iK3dxVS1VsJLQU_at_mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=+zrkt23UvCqcuCuakO9iPuxVQyY=Xnu1sO_fT_at_mail.gmail.com>
<4D477354.6020905_at_perltraining.com.au>
<AANLkTinnWqOVKxOeKvx37cNqH=n=R7KEjBEZye2EXxMj_at_mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=CRBXsHS0xPKQwpEaT6krqFKDpvm12_0af+j0L_at_mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinJ6+gvNkXr_1YSdHbjwZ+JonJEAsee7fXWze=4_at_mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinJ6+gvNkXr_1YSdHbjwZ+JonJEAsee7fXWze=4_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: 131.111.8.141
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=0.1 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,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: 2025
Bede Mudge <bane02_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I felt some interesting points were raised in this talk, I was
> disappointed that Mark resorted to scare tactics and shock value to convey
> his message. His discussion of peer impacts and how this can be manipulated
> began very effectively, but the need to visually and verbally assault the
> audience did nothing but deaden the impact for me.
I also think his central argument could have been strengthened by providing
persuasive examples of how a service provider that has access to a person's
social graph could exploit this knowledge to wield undue influence.
Advertising is the obvious case in point, but it surely isn't the only one.
For example, if you're a human rights advocate, a service provider in
collusion with a government could use your list of contacts (and other
peoples' lists) to identify suspects to be targeted - even without
intercepting the content of your communication. Of course, large providers are
excellent targets for such interception of content as well.
>
> That said, there have been some very relevant points raised regarding
> censorship (which DID NOT occur, only an apology), and I feel the handling
> of this matter by the LCA2011 team cannot be faulted.
Next time, with an anti-harassment policy in place well before the conference,
it might be a good idea to mention it on the submission form for
presentations, to ensure that all speakers are aware of it.
I know that almost all LCA presentations comply with the policy; the point,
though, is to bring into line those which otherwise wouldn't comply before
they are presented, and to give a message to all attendees regarding how
seriously inclusiveness is taken - in my experience, very seriously, at LCA. I
have nothing but praise for LCA organizers and volunteers with respect to the
support that I've personally received.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
Chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Received on Tue Feb 01 2011 - 02:26:14 GMT