On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 11:13 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:04:09PM +0200, jdd wrote:
Le 09/05/2011 19:33, Greg KH a écrit :
It has happened numerous times at other open source conferences, so there's nothing to stop it from happening here unless we specifically let everyone know that it will not be tolerated at all.
Which this document is trying to do.
If you feel the above posting does not properly address this issue, how do you propose it be changed to do so in a manner in which you would feel acceptable?
seek what happened, looks like to know a lot about them (good!), and give some clue of what action could be done to prevent it. Who will say "stop", who will enforce it? stopping such thing needs autority and force.
Jumping in here mid-stream though i still have a lot more of this thread to read. I'm a bit concerned by the tone some of you have expressed and it seems misguided and based on observation and not on real-world experiences. I can tell you based on my *two* real-world legal experiences that Greg is on the right rrack and that Jos's intention here is excellent. Now... let me state a few things that are very important. Any segment of society that feels they have been victims of harassment definitely appreciate the intention here. It is good and excellent.to be exploring this topic and sends a strong message. However a policy of anti-harassment that is not coupled with a policy of diversity rings hollow in most cases. The two legal cases I was involved in were won simply because it was recognized that the entity in question did not have an equal policy on diversity and that the anti-harassment policy was in place simply because "they had to do it legally." So, the topic of diversity is something that we, on the CFP committee are going to have to address as well. And to the one person who said we need to look at the laws of the land where the conference will be held... sorry.. that's a cop out and rings hollow once again for the same reasons I stated above. Anti-harassment laws were put into place because people didn't have the common sense to know right from wrong and ensure that the right action would be taken. The only way to protect yourself from any liabilities is to go above and beyond what the local laws say you must do. To do just the bare minimum is to fail and won't work in a court of law, nor in a court of public opinion.
So you are saying that we should not post anything and just hope to address it _after_ the fact? That's not good.
Guess what folks! the "after the fact" notion here already exists. Last year, at the openSUSE Conference, during the party held at Novell's offices, my two female sign-language interpreters and I were sitting in a sofa area. As is the responsibility of my interpreters, they interpreted the environment happening around me. At one point, one of my interpreters suddenly went wide-eyed and a bit uncomfortable. It turns out, several men in the sofa area directly behind her were having a discussion explicitly detailing sexual positions that work well in controlling a woman in bed. And I do mean explicit. Because of the lack of an anti-harassment policy, I was unable to get up and state something to this group. If I had done so anyway, the most likely response was "We were not talking to you, this was our own private conversation." And a new argument would have ensued about whether the conversation was indeed private. The fact is... no. Such conversations are not private when they are held in a public place where anyone can hear them, as was in this case. Our policy needs to make clear that its not just about how we address offensive matters in public-speaking sessions, but also in how we behave ourselves in casual situations in the hallways and events sponsored by the conference. The policy also needs to give a safe avenue for the affected person to express privately to someone in a position of authority who can address the matter on their behalf so it can be dealt with quickly. Having a policy without an "ombudsman" of some sort again, becomes moot. Please... do not waste the time of this discussion focusing on wording and semantics and trying to narrow down explicitly what constitutes harassment and situations of extreme discomfort. Focus directly on using common sense. The policy is not here just to discipline and "censor" (for lack of a better word) the offender, but to give the offended a set of text in which they can comfortably state "Sir (or Ma'am) what you are saying is inapporpriate and I am extremely uncomfortable in this situation. Please refer to the policy for any clarification. Thank you." Without such a policy, the offended is powerless and further empowers the offender to continue their actions as was evidenced at the last conference. Bryen The anti-harassment policy needs to make clear that even a conversation
This statement sets the tone for everyone that harassment will not be tolerated at all, and if it happens, explicit rules for what will happen. How is that not acceptable?
Please re-read what has been posted, and if you have suggestions as to make it more explicit to state this, then please let Jos know.
thanks,
greg k-h
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org