[diversity-talk] anti-harassment policy at SotM

Thu Jun 27 06:23:31 UTC 2013

Hi All,

The work I have done is primarily to ask geo-conferences to have
anti-harassment policies.

I think while putting the small amount of text is a start, it is
missing exactly what someone should do if something does happen. I
think also perhaps in general a different approach needs to be taken
to putting something in place. The reactions I've received are
everything from "great idea" to "I'm sorry something bad happened to
you." The "I'm sorry something bad happened to you" reaction is a bit
weird, because honestly I've never felt personally uncomfortable at a
geo related conference.

I think the fear though of some is that by putting a policy in place
then OSM will appear unwelcoming. Meaning the attitude of some is
along the lines of "well if we put something in place someone will
think something bad happened." Honestly I think others including
myself would view it as "this is an open community that is trying to
ensure everyone feel comfortable."

99% or greater of people will never have issues or be issues. Key
though is having clear guidelines for everyone.

-Kate

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:24 AM, alyssa wright <alyssapwright at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, agreed -- a wonderful perspective and generous summary. I wonder if
> there's any way to continue this conversation, perhaps at the event itself?
> Maybe a BoF or lightning talk? Like what's action item here?
>
> I'm copying Kate as I believe she's done a lot with anti-harassment policies
> in the open source geo space.
>
> Best,
> Alyssa.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Steven Johnson <sejohnson8 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Well put and very perceptive summary. Thank you, Jon.
>>
>> --SEJ
>>
>> Sent from my electronic tether.
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2013, at 15:53, Jon <jon at serf.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On 24/06/2013 18:13, Alan McConchie wrote:
>> >> Someone at the SotMUS birds of a feather session was involved in
>> >> organizing SotM 2013, and mentioned something about resistance to having an
>> >> anti-harassment policy. Unfortunately, I don't remember who said this, or
>> >> what were the details of this situation.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps someone who was at the BoF session remembers more specifics?
>> >
>> > Hello, that was me. The discussion at the meeting didn't go into
>> > specifics, so here's the background.
>> >
>> > SotM has never had an anti-harassment policy before. As an organiser of
>> > a couple of conferences in the past, I've seen some harassment problems, and
>> > this was especially brought to the front of my mind by the full-blown
>> > community meltdown following this year's PyCon in March. For background on
>> > this, see for example:
>> >
>> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/
>> > and
>> >
>> > http://plasticbag.org/archives/2013/03/on-being-grown-ups-about-childish-behaviour
>> >
>> > I proposed a wording to the SotM team which I put together by looking at
>> > the anti harassment policies of a lot of con websites. It gave some examples
>> > of what harassment might look like, and made it clear that if someone tells
>> > you that you are harassing them (with examples) you must stop.
>> >
>> > I was surprised to find that almost everyone who engaged in the
>> > discussion opposed this. The opposition included such arguments as:
>> > - it's too negative, it will put people off coming (I'm not sure who)
>> > - there's never been a problem before (that we know of) so there
>> > probably never will be
>> > - discrimination is illegal so we don't need to do anything (just rely
>> > on calling the police, presumably)
>> > - free speech is protected so we can't legally do anything further
>> > - we have no power to enforce anything outside the conference venue so
>> > we shouldn't try inside
>> > - if we give examples of harassment people will take that as a
>> > definitive list and feel free to do anything not included on it
>> > - there is no need for a policy because we can always rely on the
>> > community "to enforce norms"
>> >
>> > My view is that if we can prevent even one person from being harassed,
>> > by making it clear to the potential harasser that specific things would be
>> > uncacceptable, then having the policy would be worth it, but ultimately I
>> > wasn't supported by anyone else on the team. In the end we came up with the
>> > compromise wording which you can see on the website, which I think is better
>> > than nothing, but too vague since it contains no examples. In fact, it
>> > didn't even include the word "harassment" until the very final draft, only
>> > "discrimination". In the final form it says that harassment is unacceptable,
>> > but gives no clues as to what we think harassment actually is. Still, I
>> > think this is good progress, and maybe it will be improved on in future
>> > years.
>> >
>> > I'm not at all accusing my co-organisers as being in favour of allowing
>> > harassment or being sexist (etc) themselves. We had long since, and with
>> > little or no input from me, identified that SotM is white-male dominated and
>> > committed ourselves to acting to redress this. I think that they're just,
>> > being mostly white straight able-bodied males themselves, not aware of or
>> > interested in the privilege they enjoy or the impact harassment can have on
>> > the victim.
>> >
>> > I believe that, while OSM is currently straight-white-ablebodied-male
>> > dominated, most of them are very open to hearing from the less privileged -
>> > there just hasn't been a channel for that before. My hope is that this group
>> > will provide one.
>> >
>> > Jon.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Friday, 14 June 2013, Alan said:
>> >>>
>> >>> "For example, the international State of the Map conference (in
>> >>> Birmingham, UK, from Sept 6-8) is in its final planning stages, and
>> >>> there has been some push-back against instituting a formal
>> >>> anti-harrasment policy at the conference. The diversity-talk mailing
>> >>> list will be an important site to organize in support of initiatives
>> >>> like these." [1]
>> >>>
>> >>> Alan, it seems that there is an anti-harassment statement on the State
>> >>> of the Map web site. [2]  What was the nature of the push-back you
>> >>> mention?
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] in
>> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/diversity-talk/2013-June/000007.html
>> >>> [2] http://2013.stateofthemap.org/info/booking/
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> diversity-talk mailing list
>> >>> diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > diversity-talk mailing list
>> > diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> diversity-talk mailing list
>> diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity-talk mailing list
> diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>