Broaden the CoC policy scope? Or be more explicit in CoC about community as a whole

[yo-bj]

Starter stub... see https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=code4lib;970bebea.1407 and subsequent thread for initial question and discussion.

[thatandromeda]

yo_bj++

My first impressions:

• the existing policy explicitly applies to online spaces, but it would be worth reviewing the sanctions and response levels in light of their applicability in different spaces
• having the abuse team rotate is a fine plan
• I strongly oppose the idea of randomly selected helpers; people in this job need emotional skills, communication skills, some familiarity with the issues, and the trust of the community. I'd prefer something like "every six months, people can roll off the abuse team with no hard feelings; the abuse team puts forth both private and public calls for successors; people self-nominate and the team chooses qualified people". I don't feel a particular need for either an even or a stable number because I foresee the team operating by consensus, not by vote.
• I have literally never been asked to do anything in my capacity as an IRC @helper, so I suspect abuse team would be a low-impact job and thus well within our community capacity to fulfill - but I still think it's important to have good people in it if we go there, both as a signal of our commitments to the community at large, and because if something DOES arise it is genuinely challenging to handle.
• Geekfeminism and Livejournal/Dreamwidth have really good abuse team antecedents we should listen to if we go there.

[mkudzia]

Thanks yo_bj, thatandromeda, and dre for getting this conversation moving, and starting it, respectively!

thatandromeda, I think you make a good point about community trust, communication/emotional skills, etc. My only question about the model you propose, which I think is a good one, is how we might create the first team? Maybe c4l-wide nominations to get a group of folks start with (who could of course say no/not right now)?

[sesuncedu]

"Have there been any cases where the policy has come in to play? If so, were they clear-cut cases, or a pattern of micro-aggressions? It's the latter situation where things get tricky, but on the other hand there's a trail of evidence.

Setting up codes and enforcement for a conference is very important for safety and liability reasons. Online, the situation is less drastic, and the traditional anarchist response of shunning might be enough.

Anything policy for the mailing list should probably be run past ND counsel's and diversity offices, since although ND is immune from liability under the CDA, any serious complaint would end up going to university administration, and having a policy that they've been asked about would help avoid the instinct to shut down the list to avoid the hassle (It's important to be clear that this is being proactive.)

They may have useful advice or reusable text. It's possible that some diversity office employees might be willing to help out as volunteers with dispute mediation/deescalation (especially if it doesn't involve much work). "

He mansplained.

[phette23]

Superceded by other issue, see Becky's reference. The CoC is now broader in scope than the conference. This conversation predates the creation of the Community Support Squad and many of our CoC procedures.