Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf anti-harassment policy
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:03:46 +0100, Moray Allan <moray@sermisy.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
http://2010.osdc.com.au/code-conduct is IMO a very good thing, can basically
just be copied and is even released under a proper licence ;)
That's linked from the page Richard originally posted, in the section
'Conferences who have used or adapted this policy'. :)
Indeed, and it enumerates things that are to be considered "harrassment".
Some of the items will be straightforward, others will be ... tricky.
Two items imply that the primary usecase of this policy is
reacting against men offending women:
1) sexual images in public spaces (including presentation slides)
2) unwelcome sexual attention
I'm awkward with 1) because it's something merely inappropriate
being dressed up as a threatening act, in order to ban it.
Making people feel awkward isn't automatically harrassment, but
it can still be labeled inappropriate, and dealt with.
Dropping any pretense of neutrality for a moment; the goal is
to avoid making women feel awkward or intimidated by sleazy and
sexist stuff. I support that goal. Let's debate the suitable
means to that end.
As to 2) ... Yes, some people actually need to get that pointed
out to them. And they will most likely have to be told, after
the fact.
I assume the one who feels awkward about sexual attention
has the burden to tell that it is unwanted. That can be
quite hard. I think it would be easier to apply a common
standard of "inappropriate" attention in a code of conduct.
Besides, there is a subtext in the word "unwanted". It asserts
the freedom to make frivolous advances, yet maintains the right
to not be at the receiving end of such advances. And the
involved parties are supposed to "know it when they see it".
That game is too complicated for me, so I'm not playing.
Lastly, the word "comply" just rubs me the wrong way.
--
Herman Robak
Reply to: