Hi On 15 Jan 2014 10:50, "Michael Natterer" <<a href="mailto:mitch@gimp.org">mitch@gimp.org</a>> wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 20:11 -0800, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 14 Jan 2014 15:39, "Michael Natterer" <<a href="mailto:mitch@gimp.org">mitch@gimp.org</a>> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:15 -0500, Louis Desjardins wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I am asked by PSF if we have a Code of Conduct? > > > > > > > > I am sure that at some point in time that question was raised among us > > but > > > > I can’t recall if we reached a consensus and if so where would that > > text be? > > > > > > > > PSF could consider funding us but we’d need a published Code of Conduct. > > > > > > If they want to impose their rules in order to fund, then I'd suggest > > > not to take their money. > > > > > > About a code of conduct, what about > > > > > > "use your brain, failure to do so will get you kicked out after one > > > warning, or immediately for serious misbehavior" > > > > > > If that's not enough we're pretty much doomed. > > > > I suggest we ask the people who are minorities at the event if it or any > > other proposal is enough. You and I, as the white male majority, can't tell. > > > > For dudes claiming this is unneccessary, do you know what it's like to have > > a public profile online, like you and I do, but as a female? > > > > " In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of > > fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts > > with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or > > threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7." > > > > <a href="http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/">http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/</a> > > I am aware that sadly all of that is very true, and there is > little doubt that larger conferences need a CoC. > > What I'm uncomfortable with is the idea of "we have to get > a CoC in order to get funding", because that should really > not be the motivation for having one. I'm curious why you think cash isn't a good motivation for formality :) You seen to imply that only conference size determines the need for a coc. Are there any other criteria you feel are relevant? Minorities are requesting a coc independently if the PSF Funding, on this thread. That seems like the primary determinant of necessity to me, and cash is a very good secondary reason. > Also, I think that > LGM doesn't actually need a CoC, it has the atmosphere of > a family meeting, ...for you and me. We are insiders, having been to almost all of these events, and if you read the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it's clear you and I are parts of overlapping elites - as defined in that essay. >not of a major event It's a pretty major event in my eyes, corporate sponsors, hundreds of people, travel expenses paid, held around the world, many people there professionally on company time... I'm curious what would make it a major event in your eyes :) > that [does not] involves a > degree of anonymity. ...for you and me. If you are attending this year for the first time, having only participated in local events before, perhaps only those in Germanic, and interacting online only in Germanic forums, surely you will have a large degree of anonymity. Each year there is and will be a local constituency like that. > That said, I am not opposed to a CoC. All I'm saying is that > I feel very comfortable to be at an event where nothing > weird ever happened ... to you or me. I definitely know people who were uncomfortable at previous lgms. > and where I'm not afraid that anything > will happen ...to you or me. > therefore the idea of getting a CoC feels a bit > like trying to preemtively avoid criticism from whatever > fraction of political correctness. That you frame it as preemptive, and consider how it feels to us old-timers, is another fine example of privilege. > just my 2 ct. Thanks for continuing the discussions :) > Regards, > --Mitch > >