[CREATE] Code of Conduct

[Dave Crossland]

Dear Louis

On 11 Apr 2014 19:36, "Louis Desjardins" <louis.desjardins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2014-04-11 10:25 GMT-04:00 Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com>:
>>
>> On 10 April 2014 20:08, Susan Spencer <susan.spencer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Attendees of a conference should have reasonable assurance of their
safety.
>>
>> Right, and from the earlier messages on this thread, I understood that
>> at LGM2014 this assurance would be found through the University
>> ombudsman, who would be requested to lead the resolution of any
>> conflicts that came up.
>>
>> What mystifies me is why no one involved in the ad hoc resolution of
>> this on-site requested the help of the University ombudsman.
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I can at least answer for myself here. To be very candid, I haven’t even
thought we could ask for help at the University itself.
>
> When the event goes on and when things happen, you end up in your own
little world and think of the people around you first.
>
> However I can only guess that if we would have mentionned very clearly at
the beginning of the conference — and on our website — who to contact if
something happened, we would have gone to that person.


On the one hand, when I asked Sirko here in this thread,

"Sirko, how has the invitation to the Gleichstellungsbeauftragten fared?

If they agree to attend, will their presence and how to reach them be
mentioned on the website, and will attendees be notified at the event?"

Sirko did say,

"Of course after I speak with [the ombudsman] and we find a way he will get
his own page on lgm.org"

and the 2 suggestions I made and you reiterate did not happen, as far as I
know (not attending many announcements, eek)

On the other hand, despite the lack of a page titled COC on the website
that actually says instead of a coc there is the hosts ombudsman, and the
lack of announcements and notices, still the python software foundation is
listed as a sponsor on the website today.

So i would find it unfair to attribute the lack of the ombudsman's
involvement to the website team, or to the session masters or whatever we
call them, or to the local organizing team.

The nature of a free-association and participatory group as ours is that if
we don't like what we have, it is up to us to be the change we want to see.

So i offer the suggestion that those concerned about a CoC could have been
more proactive in working with the cards they were dealt this year.

It seems to me that everyone at the meeting Susan described did know there
was an ombudsman, didn't promote this fact preemptively, and didnt remember
it or want it brought up when there was an incident.

There was no CoC, but there was an ombudsman, and those who want a CoC
didn't make use of it.

> First, you don’t come at a conference thinking there is going to be an
incident. Hence, there is a need to make sure all participants are aware
that that *can* happen. It’s like security measures on board of a plane or
a boat, or around a swimming pool. If we are not aware of the danger, then
we cannot really react to it. And when we discover that THIS is dangerous,
it maybe well too late to react, or to react with the appropriate measures.


We were aware of the danger, this year for the first time, because the PSF
wants us to be aware of it, and we had a huge discussion about it.

This situation is that we asked a lifeguard to stick around on the weekend
for our pool party, he was taking lunch inside the club house the whole
time, and when there was some incident no one who had asked him to be there
did call for him.



> Number 2: time... Time flies... At some point in time the conference ends
and everyone goes home... However the damage is done and the consequences
will remain, outside the conference. At a certain point we have to face the
reality we’re going to have to handle the case remotely. It’s not easy at
all.
>
> We are learning.

It is absolutely unclear to me what is to be done to handle this case any
further. I don't think anything ought to be done: We don't have a CoC, we
had an ombudsman but they were not called, so we rely on private parties
sorting out their differences in private.

If going forward someone in our community is uncomfortable or begrudging
another one of us, they best leave each other alone politely or risk a new
incident that would, I hope, be guided by the CoC that we will have in
place at that time.

> Louis
>
>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CREATE mailing list
>> CREATE at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
>
>l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/create/attachments/20140412/0b03d42a/attachment.html>