On Tue, 17 May 2011 23:12:34 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On 2011-05-12 Jim wrote:
It surprises me how much discussion this simple question has caused, because it's not like no other conference has never thought of this or addressed it before.
Or not addressed in fact. (because it was never a problem).
I think you'll find that most conferences probably do have something like this, but since most conferences are privately organized, it's not publicized.
Maybe the organizers could talk to someone involved in the BrainShare conferences, as I'm sure they've addressed this at some point in the past.
I have been attending various conferences for about twenty years - IBM SHARE/GUIDE mostly, OOPSLA on occasion, internal corporate conferences more often. None of those have had an "anti-harassment policy", simply (AFAICT) because they expect attendees to be behaving professionally and with decorum. (Anstand). Perhaps that is the most interesting thing about this debate - our community manager does clearly NOT expect that.
I don't think it's a question of Jos not expecting people to act professionally (though one could certainly argue that this community DOES have its share of people who 'act out', both on the mailing lists and in other parts of the community - we have our share in the forums, I'm sure IRC has its share, and so on). I've also been attending conferences for about 20 years myself, and I've never been aware of such a policy being in place, but my lack of awareness doesn't mean they don't have one. I suppose while you might look at the discussion and say "it says a lot about the community manager" (and mean that you think Jos looks on the community poorly), I look at it as "it says a lot about the community manager" in that he doesn't want to just dictate a policy but get input from the community he's 'managing'.
Calling attention to the fact that having a good atmosphere matters has led at LCA to a great atmosphere and I am surprised and annoyed that so many people have been argueing so much against my proposal.
Don't be annoyed, be thankful that your community consists of people who care enough to argue. In my opinion, your proposal is causing a problem because it tries to address an issue that does not, as far as we know, exist. You have so far neglected to argue why you deem this policy to be necessary.
Be thankful that Jos cares enough to solicit opinions, Per. It *should* be enough to say "act professionally", but it seems there are some here who would rather just argue for the sake of arguing rather than for any sense of progress on the issue. If it's not that big of a deal, then *why* argue? If you feel that people will behave professionally, then fine, the policy isn't needed, but it doesn't impact those who do behave professionally.
Imho over half the arguments are irrelevant, the rest is simply wrong.
IMHO, you're simply wrong. I have a hard time appreciating how you intend to manage this community by calling us irrelevant and wrong.
He did *not* say the community was irrelevant and wrong, he said the arguments were. The two are not the same thing. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org