Re: [guadec-list] anti-harassment policy

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59 srcf ucam org>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> First of all, I'm pretty sure nobody in this discussion said there
> should be no policy *at all*. There seems to be a misunderstanding
> that this discussion is between those "for a policy" vs "those against
> any form of policy" and it is not. Maybe those advocating a strong
> policy could use a moment to think about it, maybe they'd see we're
> not their enemies. As someone said elsewhere, "my heart sank a bit for
> every email in the discussion" where people assumed we're not better
> than that.

Strong policies achieve their aims. Weak policies don't. The lack of a 
clear set of examples means that people are less likely to report 
inappropriate behaviour because they feel like it'll just turn into an 
argument about whether specific acts violate a vague "Be respectful" 
term. The idea of having a strong policy isn't to actually alter what's 
acceptable, it's to ensure that organisers and attendees have an equal 
understanding.

> We said we'd comply with the decision, so the code of conduct will be
> published. I don't think insisting on the fact that we're bad people
> serves any purpose.

I don't think you're terrible people, and I'm sorry if it's seemed like 
I'm implying that. I think you're wrong on this particular point, but 
it's a point of discussion.

I don't think you actually believe that any of the behaviours described 
in the CoC would be acceptable. But arguing against them will result in 
some people questioning that. If you won't accept a policy that says 
it's not ok to sexually harrass another attendee, does that mean that 
you won't take complaints about that behaviour seriously?

> > It's certainly
> > possible for a conference to be successful without a strong CoC. It's
> > absolutely possible for the vast majority of attendees to have a good
> > time.
>
> Here you're implying that having a soft code, however clear it is,
> doesn't work when it comes to enforcement. I think that's the main
> point we disagree on. I don't see how to fix this disagreement.

There's two reasons for a CoC:

1) To ensure that attendees agree on a base level of acceptable 
behaviour and the outcomes for contravening that
2) To demonstrate to attendees that you take the problem seriously

A soft policy doesn't really help either of these. One of the problems 
with many of the reported incidents has been that the harasser thought 
what they were doing was fine and that it's all just a harmless 
misunderstanding. Conferences with soft policies tend to then do nothing 
about it, because if it was just a misunderstanding then did anyone 
really do anything wrong?

People talk about these things. People have lists of conferences that 
they feel safe at. People's opinons are influenced by the presence of a 
strong CoC. People now know that the absence of a strong CoC tends to be 
correlated with an absence of strong enforcement, and that means there 
are people who will avoid conferences that don't have one. It's not 
necessarily a boycot so much as a choice to spend time somewhere they 
feel safer.

> > There are many documented cases of harassment occurring. How many
> > documented cases of people being unjustly restricted by a CoC have there
> > been? If it's equally difficult to talk about both (which strikes me as
> > unlikely - discussing harassment at conferences tends to get you
> > sexualised slurs and threats of violence, discussing restrictions on
> > freedom of speech tends to get you praise), that still seems like an
> > argument that more people are affected by harassment than are affected
> > by CoCs.
>
> It took years before the people advocating strong policies got to the
> point where they are now. I'd expect it will take time before the
> people that feel oppressed get to a similar point, if they ever decide
> to organize themselves in a similar fashion. But that will most
> probably never happen as the latter group wouldn't want to harass
> people (from the former group, or not) by insisting with their point
> of view.

We're comparing demonstrated harm to theoretical harm. It makes sense to 
prioritise the thing we know exists rather than the thing we're worried 
might exist.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 srcf ucam org