Will need to be updated with organizer contacts for the 2014 conference. This includes replacing the line "For #c4l13, that would be Francis Kayiwa" and filling in all the stuff in brackets in the Sanctions area.

The Website Working Group for Code4Lib 2021 is reviewing content for Code4Lib's first conference virtual conference without an in-person venue.

We will include the Code of Conduct similar to previous years, and suggest the community review, discuss, and revise the Code of Conduct in advance of the virtual meeting.

Relatedly, we'd like to invite the revision to the Photography Policy on the website for the online conference, which we are temporarily hiding until we have a version for the virtual conference:

Photography Policy

Do not photograph, film, or audio-record anyone at Code4Lib without their expressly-given permission beforehand. Color-
and pattern-coded lanyards are available at the registration desk to help indicate the wearer’s preference for photography
ONLY. Please note, regardless of lanyards, you must always ask before filming or audio-recording attendees.

Some potential topics for consideration that came up in our 11/16/2020 discussion were:

• discouraging screenshots of conference participants without their permission
• the ability for participants to turn on and off their video, and whether that is a sufficient replacement for the lanyard
• preferences for their image being shared beyond the conference, like social media (for both attendees and speakers)
• whether recordings of conference sessions will or will not share conference attendees' video (if they are sharing video)

Age isn't in here, and is in the EEOC types.

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.

Is the committee referred to in the Procedures document (e.g. "convene the committee," "This is the committee's responsibility," etc) the Community Support Squad, the Conference's Local Planning Committee, or some other body?

Yeah well I'm the victim and it needs to stop now

Can we incorporate the following text about Incident and Community Response [1] to the repository? It can either be incorporated as a supporting document that is referred to in the CoC, or incorporated in the main document itself. Either one is fine with me.

Also, apologies for the typos. I typed this at 6 am this morning before consuming tea.

[1] https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=code4lib;ed941045.1301

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

The 2019 Transparency Report had a very good idea that was never realized:

The community needs more specifically articulated and codified values. In addition to the Code of Conduct, this would provide a lens through which the community understands and models acceptable behavior.

A "values.md" document, something constructive and idealistic, would be a welcome addition to this repository though it also would require gathering quite a bit of community input.

Raised by @ruebot and @jrochkind in comments on 90fed35

Do we have a list of people who have privs to administrate #code4lib? IIRC, in the past that might have been @tholbroo ...

Hey all,

The shortlink was created for #c4l13. Wondering if it's useful to include it somewhere on the actual document so that people can easily link to it? Just a thought.

http://bit.ly/coc4lib

-Cynthia

Branching off of #46 since 1) old thread is old and 2) the link in the original issue post is now dead, and I need to find the thread in the new mail archive.

Since the CoC is still primarily focused on implementation in a conference/event setting, I'm wondering if one way we can "expand" the CoC is by adopting a list of explicit social norms. For example, Write The Docs has a list of community conduct expectations for their very active Slack channel. The Social Rules were inspired by the Recurse Center. The Social Rules does not replace the WTD CoC but compliments it.

Enforcement of these rules in the WTD Slack, from my observations, has been mostly peer to peer, with the occasional reminder from one of the WTD organizers. The reporting and response processes of the Social Rules are included in the main WTD policies.

The adoption of any type of guidelines/expectations/etc. would require the community to revisit the conversation in #46 about setting up a reporting and response structure outside conferences and events. Some of the logistics could be offset with our relationship with DLF with regard to reporting mechanisms or a few staff to help with reports and responses. We also have a few years of Duty Officers under our belts, and the selection, training, and reporting processes developed for the DOs could be used to help with implementation and maintenance of such a reporting/response structure.

I can create a new PR with some variation of the WTD Slack Social Rules, but the issue of reporting and response structures outside events needs to be addressed in that PR as well. Thoughts and suggestions about how to go about that are welcome, as well as about the adoption of additional conduct guidelines in the community.

Under Threats to physical safety and law enforcement, these two adjacent sentences are contradictory:

If you have any concerns as to anyone's physical safety, contact venue security or local law enforcement immediately.
Do not involve law enforcement under any other circumstances except by request of the reporter.

We're impelled to contact law enforcement immediately but then told not to. I think it's evident throughout the CoC that enforcement involves tough decisions and judgment calls but perhaps this section could be improved by making these two statements less absolute, though I don't have a specific suggestion at this time.

Jenn from Concentra emailed me recently about adding a phrase to the CoC about discrimination based on languages spoken. She pointed to this passage from the IASSIST CoC:

"English is the working language of IASSIST. However, at any events and among the members, everyone should feel welcome despite which language(s) they natively speak."
Here’s the reference URL: https://iassistdata.org/community/code-of-conduct/

Looking at ours, we do not specify language spoken in our list in the second paragraph. The smallest change would be to simply add "language spoken" to that list. We would then not be including the "English is the working language..." phrase, but I don't think that's very necessary (and there have been Code4Lib events in other countries where English is not the primary language).

Will the code of conduct override the existing "how to hack code4lib" page, leading it to get replaced? There are some deeply problematic components of those page which stand in conflict with the goals of an antiharassment policy. For example, immediately under the "don't be racist" section linked in the README is Don't be too sensitive, which says "political correctness can sway too far to the conservative, and what fun is that?" The document later says you should make sure people know you don't mind being a target.

Having both of these documents existing at the same time will send mixed messages, to say the least.

The initial response level in our Code of Conduct is that the harassed should notify the offender to knock it off. This seems like a great option right up until it isn't. In particular...

• In cases of genuine misunderstanding or non-malicious cluelessness, sometimes things can be resolved this way and it really is the best way. But:
• It requires someone who may already be really upset to attempt, and maybe even pass, a diplomacy check. That's hard! And it requires them to engage further with someone whose interactions are already distressing. And it may require someone who's in a multiply-marginalized position to take on someone of higher social status and get them to admit they're doing social wrong.
• There are cases where this response level is actually unsafe.

I'd like to keep in the recommendation of resolving things amongst the parties where possible, but have language that allows for bypassing that when it's not a good idea.

Perhaps "please inform" -> "please consider informing"? Or "please inform...if you are comfortable doing so"?

I'd also like to talk about the "if you see someone else being harassed". I think it is very important that we recognize the role of third parties; yay! But whether someone feels harassed can be a tough judgment call from the outside, and white knighting is a concern here.

Maybe have a first paragraph aimed at the person who is being harassed, and a second aimed at third parties, to the effect of "If you see someone you believe is being harassed, thank you for watching out for your community! Please do give them a chance to exit the situation gracefully; please don't assume that they are in need of rescue. Best practice is to ask if they need help ("are you okay with this?" or "is this person bothering you?"), or to give them a chance to leave ("we're going to go do X, wanna come along?")"

I'm thinking about this advice here.

As identified by @azaroth42 in 36cff4b :

violating these rules will be dealt with appropriately, and may be
sanctioned, expelled, or banned at the discretion of the organizers
or channel administrators.

What are sanctions appropriate to code4lib? From the Geek Feminism wiki, possible sanctions include:

• warning the harasser to cease their behaviour and that any further reports will result in sanctions
• requiring that the harasser avoid any interaction with, and physical proximity to, their victim for the remainder of the event
• ending a talk that violates the policy early
• not publishing the video or slides of a talk that violated the policy
• not allowing a speaker who violated the policy to give (further) talks at the event
• immediately ending any event volunteer responsibilities and privileges the harasser holds
  requiring that the harasser not volunteer for future events your organization runs (either indefinitely or for a certain time period)
• requiring that the harasser refund any travel grants and similar they received (this would need to be a condition of the grant at the time of being awarded)
• requiring that the harasser immediately leave the event and not return
• banning the harasser from future events (either indefinitely or for a certain time period)
• removing a harasser from membership of relevant organizations
• publishing an account of the harassment and calling for the resignation of the harasser from their responsibilities (usually pursued by people without formal authority: may be called for if the harasser is the event leader, or refuses to stand aside from the conflict of interest, or similar, typically event staff have sufficient governing rights over their space that this isn't as useful)
• providing a short report of a harasser's conduct to their employer if under some sort of "official" capacity (presenting on a product, recruiting, etc.)

Once #50 has gone through, it might be worthwhile to review the latest version of the CoC using the following list at https://otter.technology/blog/2017/12/28/code-of-conduct-enforcement-warning-signs/, and creating a PR to address any areas that need improvement based on the review.