[OSGeo-Conf] Code of Conduct at Events?
Eric Wolf
ebwolf at gmail.com
Thu Nov 11 02:19:26 EST 2010
Peter and Jeff,
I apologize. I didn't mean to misstate what you specifically said. But
Jeff did say:
"My gut reaction is that I hope we don't need to state this at our events."
and you replied:
"That was my initial reaction too."
My own initial reaction also was identical. In fact, I deleted Frank's
original email summarily. But something made me rethink these
statements and I began to suspect my own gut feelings. So I read the
blogs references more closely and explored the debate more.
The more I read, the more I questioned my gut feelings. And yeah, I'm
challenging your (Peter and Jeff''s) gut feelings as well. That's why
I've kept the thread stoked. Saying "I don't think we need to do this"
makes it impossible to tell that you meant "I question whether this
will make women feel more or less comfortable" or that you meant "this
doesn't happen at events I attend". I suggest that to an assault
victim, your gut feeling would probably interpreted as the latter. You
clarified the intent in your reply but maybe it needed to be coaxed
out. At the very least, my prodding has given you the opportunity to
make a thoughtful statement on the matter.
But the matter seems to be in the zeitgeist: http://openrespect.org/
Is attempting to establish a somewhat universal code of respect for
open source discussions. IETF has had a formal statement as far back
as 2001. OGC adopted a similar policy.
Here is an article from Geek Feminism on making events more women friendly:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Women-friendly_events
It has plenty good ideas (in general) but also specifically mentions a
code of conduct.
Here is the Con Anti-Harrassment Project page:
http://www.cahp.girl-wonder.org/
Here is the Open Source Women Back Each Other Up Project page:
http://backupproject.org/faq.html
Maybe this is more of an issue for SciFi/Comic Cons where there is a
strong movement towards publishing such statements. Maybe the problem
at ApacheCon was due to some level of cross-over in communities.
It just seems to me that something may be afoot and we should avoid
dismissing the issue. Maybe we should include a statement like the
IETF RFC 3184 Principles of Conduct. Maybe we should extend the
statement a little to make it encompass some of these more recent
trends. We definitely should explore the information provided by Geek
Feminism to make the event more friendly for everyone. I wonder if we
can find an LOC member willing to make this their charge? One of my
original ideas was to try to have LOC members who would take on the
task of encouraging participation from specific countries. Maybe we
can do the same for women.
-Eric
-=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Helena Mitasova
<hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> I too go to many conferences and I fully agree with Peter - I have never seen any policy like this and I am not sure I would be very excited going to a conference where such policy is perceived as needed, I feel that it really may create more problems than it solves as Peter notes,
>
> Helena
>
> P.S. I just came from Denver a week ago - I go there about every 3 years but I was absolutely impressed by everything this time - from the stunning Liebeskind's art museum, lively atmosphere with crowds of young people in outdoors cafes and restaurants on 16th street, excellent location of the Sheraton directly on 16th and close enough to the museum and it looks like they are opening a huge brewery right next door (no need to ride anywhere to get together for a dinner) and for those not into beer there is a huge bookstore within one block, and the rental bike stations are everywhere - I could continue for next page and I was there only 2 days. Just flying in on a sunny day with Rockies in the background was beautiful.
> I hope everybody will have a great time as I did and I hope to see 1000+ FOSS4G participants there.
>
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 12:27 AM, Peter Batty wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric, I will try to just say a few short(ish) words on this.
>>
>> First, this is a complex and emotive topic. Please don't put words in other people's mouths, it doesn't help us to have a calm and reasonable debate. You said Jeff and Peter said that "sexual assault doesn't happen at FOSS4G". Neither of us said anything like that (though clearly I hope it doesn't).
>>
>> I think the thing that both Jeff and I were questioning is whether we need an explicit policy on this. My general feeling is still that it is common sense that we expect conference attendees to obey the law and behave in a respectful manner towards other conference attendees. As you said in your original note, there are a long list of other undesirable behaviors we could have policies on including racism, respect for sexual orientation or religious views, etc etc. We could fill several pages of a program easily with policies on how people should behave.
>>
>> I attend probably in the order of 10 conferences (mainly geo-related), large and small, per year, and have done for many years. I don't recall ever seeing a specific policy at any of these conferences along these lines. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have one, it's just an observation.
>>
>> One concern I do have if we have a prominently displayed policy is that many people will jump to the conclusion that there has been an issue in this area at FOSS4G in the past, which I don't think that there has, so far as I'm aware. Some people might see it as a positive thing if we had such a policy, but I am concerned that others might see it as a reason not to attend - wow, if the conference organizers have to tell attendees that it's unacceptable to sexually harass / assault other attendees, what sort of people are they expecting to attend? As you noted, women are already under-represented at FOSS4G and other geo conferences, and I would hate to see us adding deterrents for women to attend (again, this may or may not be the case, but I think it's a real risk).
>>
>> You suggest that having a statement in the program may deter this kind of behavior. To be honest I really doubt that. "Oh, the organizers of this conference disapprove of sexual harassment, I'll save that for the next conference I'm at".
>>
>> If we do have some sort of code of conduct / policy in this area, that puts the onus on the conference organizers to police that. What happens if someone makes a complaint to the conference organizers, how do we judge whether it is well founded or not? I think there is a real risk of us over-reaching what is reasonable for the conference organizers to be responsible for.
>>
>> Clearly none of us would want this sort of thing to happen at FOSS4G. It's a complex topic and I can see pros and cons in regard to us having some sort of code of conduct. And clearly the motivations behind proposing that we have a policy are well-intentioned. I wouldn't rule it out, but overall I lean pretty strongly at the moment to thinking that having an explicit policy in this area may create more problems than it solves.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Eric Wolf <ebwolf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I started a thread related to this subject on a friend's blog:
>>
>> http://www.flutterby.com/archives/comments/13625.html
>>
>> Some activity has started, including a link to the IETF RFC 1384
>> Guidlines for Conduct:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3184
>>
>> Which appear to have been lifted by our friends at OGC as their
>> Principles of Conduct:
>>
>> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/policies/conduct
>>
>> While neither of these explicitly mention sexual assault, they both
>> imply it a little in 2.1 of the RFC. Personally, it wouldn't hurt to
>> expand that section a little in the manner of the Code of Conduct from
>> the SPI.
>>
>> Fortunately, we have time on our side. We don't have to make a
>> specific decision any time soon.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
>> Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Eric Wolf <ebwolf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > My ex-wife is a social worker. She works as an advocate for victims of
>> > domestic abuse. She can recount numerous times talking to Sheriffs,
>> > Pastors, Rabbis, and other community leaders who would respond simply
>> > stating "we don't have domestic violence in this community." The truth
>> > is domestic violence is as likely in a mansion as it is a trailer
>> > park. It's just more likely to be brushed under the rug in the
>> > mansion.
>> >
>> > As much as I'd like to be able to agree with Jeff and Peter - that
>> > "sexual assault doesn't happen at FOSS4G", I can't help but look
>> > around room at the lot of us - all white males - and think we may be
>> > taking something for granted: the well being of our conference
>> > participants.
>> >
>> > Having a statement in the program, at the very least, helps victims of
>> > assault feel like they are being heard. It brings to the surface what
>> > is a real issue; making everyone aware that the problem is real. And
>> > maybe, it'll make some people realize they need to grow up or help
>> > others have the courage to stop someone before they do something
>> > stupid.
>> >
>> > From our perspective, it's a page in the program. From a victim or
>> > potential victim of assault, it could be much more.
>> >
>> > -Eric
>> >
>> > P.S. I'm aware that the argument against is "where do we stop such
>> > tangential inclusions?" I mean, do we need a statement denouncing
>> > genocide? or discouraging heroin use? I'm not sure where to draw the
>> > line but since the linked posting states "unwanted sexual attention up
>> > and to including fairly serious assaults is not unusual at at least
>> > some FLOSS events." I'm inclined to include something like the
>> > suggested statement - or enlist an organizing committee member to
>> > investigate the matter and decide where the line should be drawn.
>> >
>> > -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
>> > Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Peter Batty <peter at ebatty.com> wrote:
>> >> That was my initial reaction too.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> My gut reaction is that I hope we don't need to state this at our events.
>> >>> I'm not against including it in all of our FOSS4G program documents, but it
>> >>> seems a little unnecessary.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm open to hearing other opinions.
>> >>>
>> >>> -jeff
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10-11-10 1:15 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Folks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This just came across the SPI (software in the public interest) mailing
>> >>>> list. I'm not sure if it is something we might want to consider for
>> >>>> FOSS4G
>> >>>> or other events. To me most of it seems like common sense that applies in
>> >>>> all situations rather than needing to be specifically stated at events.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2010-November/002845.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll keep an eye for how it is received within SPI.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (PS. I first wrote about this to the board, but on reflection I think
>> >>>> this
>> >>>> is a more appropriate place to contemplate the matter)
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Conference_dev mailing list
>> >> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>
>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list