Apologise, mebbe?

[abesottedphoenix]

One of my problems with this policy is that it doesn't sound like us. I can only assume that this will be fixed. :)

Can we add summat about offenders offering an apology up in here? I can only imagine that transgressors are like to feel bad and will want to do summat to clear things up.

[anarchivist]

Can you be more specific about it the policy not sounding like us?

I am not entirely comfortable adding a clause about apologies. This is not about transgressors paying their penance, this is about creating a safe environment. Per the Geek Feminism wiki page on responding to reports of harassment (abbreviated for length, so click through):

We do not suggest asking for an apology to the victim. You have no responsibility to enforce friendship, reconciliation, or anything beyond lack of harassment between any two given attendees, and in fact doing so can contribute to someone's lack of safety at your event.

Forcing a victim of harassment to acknowledge an apology from their harasser forces further contact with their harasser. It also creates a social expectation that they will accept the apology, forgive their harasser, and return their social connection to its previous status. ...

If the harasser offers to apologize to the victim (especially in person), we suggest strongly discouraging it. If a staff member relays an apology to the victim, it should be brief and not require a response.

[deborahgu]

Heh, Mark, opened up this page with this URL in hand and you were already there. Thanks.

[abesottedphoenix]

Salve!

Can you be more specific about it the policy not sounding like us?

    At this stage, it's pretty much word for word copy and pasted from the Ada Initiative. People are better served by policies that they generate within their community, or at very least tweak to capture the spirit of their fellows.

I am not entirely comfortable adding a clause about apologies. This is not about transgressors paying their penance, this is about creating a safe environment. Per the Geek Feminism wiki page on responding to reports of harassment (abbreviated for length, so click through):

    I think it would serve to have the policy closer to the culture of Code4Lib. I frankly don't care what the Geek Feminism wiki says. There are mild situations where an apology serves quite well. As a suggested measure, no one is forcing anyone to give or accept one.

Cheers, Brooke

[mjgiarlo]

Brooke / @abesottedphoenix:

Since the initial commit of the CodeOfConduct4Lib, there have been a bunch of changes and there are yet more waiting in pull requests. You're right, though, that it still feels very much like a copied-and-pasted policy instrument. I see the process of putting that instrument on GitHub as a way to do precisely what you suggest we do: make it feel more Code4Libbish. I would welcome you to fork the repo and help with that effort to the extent that you feel that hasn't yet happened sufficiently. The document will ultimately be a product of all who make changes to it, and our collective level of satisfaction; otherwise put, please help us make document more like what you think it should be!

[mjgiarlo]

FWIW, I agree with @anarchivist that an apology clause might not be a great fit. If someone wanted to try to fit one in and submit a pull request, I'd be happy to take a look.

I see the instrument as a means of recourse for conference organizers and IRC/listserv administrators in the event of reported or observed harassment. It's something we can point offenders at and say, "whoa, buddy, you're out of line, and here's why and here's what will happen if you continue." At that point, if the offender doesn't realize that offering an apology is something a decent person would do, well, I am skeptical that a line in a code of conduct will do the trick.

My :two: :dollar:.

[deborahgu]

@abesottedphoenix I know that you say you don't care what the geek feminism wiki says, but did you read that section of the wiki? It's actually really important, and was put into place because of recurring problems at tech and non-tech conferences when harassees were pressured by either rules or social norms to accept an apology from someone who had harmed them or otherwise made them feel unsafe.

The point of an anti-harassment policy is not to repair individual relationships between harassers -- no matter how well-meaning -- and those whom they have harassed. It is to make a safe space where harassment doesn't happen, as @anarchivist said.

[abesottedphoenix]

Salvete!

@abesottedphoenix I know that you say you don't care what the geek feminism wiki says, but did you read that section of the wiki? It's actually really important, and was put into place because of recurring problems at tech and non-tech conferences when harassees were pressured by either rules or social norms to accept an apology from someone who had harmed them or otherwise made them feel unsafe. The point of an anti-harassment policy  is not to repair individual relationships between harassers -- no matter how well-meaning -- and those whom they have harassed. It is to make a safe space where harassment doesn't happen, as @anarchivist said.

    Yes, I did. My opinion that I don't give a fig about what they said stands. While I see their point, I feel that within our community it would generally be appropriate for a mild transgression. Did you read that I qualified this earlier by using the word "mild"? At no point did I state that the policy should force an apology. Discouraging them entirely comes across quite cold and stale to me. Apologies are part of safe spaces; they are not part of covering one's arse.

Cheers, Brooke

[mjgiarlo]

@abesottedphoenix Hmmm, do you feel that the code of conduct as currently formulated discourages apologies?

[abesottedphoenix]

Salve!

@abesottedphoenix Hmmm, do you feel that the code of conduct as currently formulated discourages apologies?

    Yes, since it links back to a policy that rather hamfistedly discourages apologies. Believe me, I understand why, but I think that's overkill for most situations and leads to a bigger chill than one would otherwise get. We don't want either party hurt. This is true in especial of the person that was harassed, but it's kind of dumb to assume that the person who might have done something as mild to their mind as mispeaking that there's absolutely no way for them to make amends. There's a spectrum of wrongdoing here, and I think it certainly honours the severe cases but it does everyone an extreme disservice in the case of a minor transgression. Does this make sense to you?

    I've had tonnes of people say really, REALLY racist or sexist things to me. It just does not occur to them that some of the stuff that comes out of their mouth in a safe setting should be considered. I usually cut a lot of slack for folks if they're outside of a diversity setting: that's just not what's on someone's mind. But for the times where I've taken offence and not got any sort of apology, I've frankly been appalled, and I'd rather not give summat for folks to hide behind. The rude will be rude, mistakes will happen, but not allowing for the mending of fences just seems absurd. The consultant in me wonders if the community is looking for a cover their arse measure: if that's the case then it really doesn't need much tailoring, and my points are totally moot. If we're really looking to make long term climate changes, then I think it's worth ensuring that our policy isn't just some boilerplate thing that links to another boiler plate thing that is rather prickly in nature.

    I'll shut up now.

Cheers, Brooke

[djfiander]

here is an example of why talking about apologizing might be a challenge. For the person who is on the receiving end of unwanted attention (to be mild, and all-encompassing), giving the harasser another chance to interact with the harassed is not the right thing to do.

There's a difference between offering an apology in the moment, when it's clear that a line has been crossed, and continuing to approach somebody after having been told to back off. This is another part of what the geek feminism policy is trying to get at.

[abesottedphoenix]

Salvete!

here is an example of why talking about apologizing might be a challenge. For the person who is on the receiving end of unwanted attention (to be mild, and all-encompassing), giving the harasser another chance to interact with the harassed is not the right thing to do. There's a difference between offering an apology in the moment, when it's clear that a line has been crossed, and continuing to approach somebody after having been told to back off. This is another part of what the geek feminism policy is trying to get at.

    I am reminded of one of the best trainings evar. In the words of a New York State Trooper "You all put up with far too much." There are laws against someone whipping it out in the stacks. Call the cops. The incident that that blog is about is stalking. Call the cops. That does not fit under my definition of mild. It's freggin' illegal. It goes beyond a Conference policy. If someone does that at Code4Lib, don't politely tell them to knock it off, call the cops. Again, I've been on the receiving end of all sorts of unwanted attention. Believe me, I know why there are a lot of situations that aren't within the realm of an apology being good enough. But for those that are, we shouldn't make someone that made an honest mistake feel any more of a pariah than they already do.

    This is a challenge. This stuff is hard. To me the solution is to be pretty granular in shades of severity and perhaps ridiculously specific. It's not to just throw up one's hands and say "Aw, nevermind. It's too difficult to define stuff."

Cheers, Brooke

[mjgiarlo]

I'm not sure what needs to happen at this point. Does anyone have a pull request to offer that would address this issue?

[anarchivist]

@abesottedphoenix , @mjgiarlo re: "sounding like us", see #17.

[anarchivist]

Is this still considered an open issue?

[anarchivist]

This has been sitting with no discussion for three years. I propose to close this for now; we can reopen if there are remaining concerns.

[mjgiarlo]

:+1: to closing. Thanks for following up, @anarchivist