2014-05-26 8:39 GMT-04:00 Femke Snelting <[email protected]>: > Dear Ale, Anders, > > As you can imagine your point of view has come up in the many discussions > that lead to the formulation of this document. > > The reason to have examples included, is that experience learns (from many > other groups that have done CoCs and/or that have dealt with harassment), > that concrete cases are necessary in order for a CoC to work. The argument > being that it should be explicit from the start that harassment is a > reality and that it should not be the problem of someone that feels > harassed to convince others that such behaviour exists. Even when the > general tone of the document is constructive, this CoC exists for a reason. > > So while all involved in the drafting of it agreed to have examples, we > felt it was not up to us to formulate a list of specific cases. We decided > to refer to the timeline of incidents, as it is the only well-documented > page on harassment in relevant contexts that we are aware of. > > The LGM-CoC addresses all types of harassment, and not only those that are > gender related. While I think the 'geek' and 'feminism' in the url is a > detail, I do share your concern that the examples are mainly gender related > (it is not true that they are only about harassment against women). >
Hi Femke, I think the fact that "the examples are mainly gender related", while the possible behaviors we want to avoid and act upon embraces a wider range of threats, is at the heart of the concerns expressed here. To sort this out, I would suggest we include a couple more examples that are not gender specific (examples below). I don’t know if this would make a consensus but I would hope so. For one, I feel a bit uncomfortable with that only one link and after having read the comments. I also agree that the links should go towards a page we have control over as Simon as pointed it. > At the end of the day we were more concerned by not having any examples at > all, than to have only examples of a limited scope. Of course, if there > are other sources that you can suggest, it would be very good to include > them. > >From the Swansea University (UK) we have well written definitions and examples followed by a section about what to do when being harassed or feeling harassed that could inspire us for the "how to deal with issues". https://www.swan.ac.uk/registry/academicguide/conductandcomplaints/dignityatworkandstudycombatingharassment/1introduction/ >From École Polytechnique de Montréal (English version of the document). Especially the section about definition is of much interest in my view and has the benefit of putting into a simple wording what is harassment without going into all the details. Well worth reading, I think. http://www.polymtl.ca/sg/docs_officiels/en/1310har3.htm >From the London School of Economics http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/staff/humanResources/reviewingAndRewarding/promotionAndReview/disciplinaryGrievance/harassment/examplesOfDifferentTypesOfHarassment.aspx The American point of view http://www.strategichr.com/shrsweb2/harassment_01.shtml Some additionnal links: The Ada Initiative https://adainitiative.org/what-we-do/conference-policies/ The New York University Anti-Harassment Policy http://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/anti-harassment-policy-and-complaint-procedures.html Python Software Foundation CoC https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ and https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/ > > best, > > > Femke > > > > On 26/05/14 13:06, a.l.e wrote: > >> dear femke and all >> >> first thanks for your work on this document! >> >> the LGM CoC looks good to me. >> >> ... just one thing... >> >> - I agree that the reference to examples was awkwardly phrased and >>> simple is better: >>> "Some examples: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents >>> " >>> >> >> personally, i would prefer that line to be removed. >> >> >> on the one side, i'm not sure that a list of examples needs to be there. >> the document seems to be clear enough! >> >> on the other side, "geek" + "feminism" in the url and the fact that most >> (if not all) the examples are about women (i could not spot any about any >> other gender/sexual/skin/religious/you name it category that tend to be >> the target of "incidents"... but i have not read the whole page) does not >> match the idea that a CoC is there to protect each participant from any >> other "bad" participant. whether they are geek or not, males or women, or >> anything else they wish or happen to be. >> >> >> for sure, not a reason to reject the CoC. but -- in my eyes -- a detail >> that might be worth to be fixed... >> but you (plural) might also have very good reasons to keep that link... >> >> >> have a nice day and, again, thanks for the fine document! >> a.l.e >> _______________________________________________ >> CREATE mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create >> >> _______________________________________________ > CREATE mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create >
_______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
