[IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Hilary Naylor]

Hi James and all,

It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more
common) is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean
what the translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review
of the phrase in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that
it is polite, but it has nothing to do with anyone's mother).
   I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual e-lists
like this one should be "no English idioms"!

thanks
Hilary

---Original Message---
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
From: James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org>
To: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org, slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy -
Sugar Labs


Long reply.

I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.

I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
my eyes.

Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.

For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.

1.  a misunderstanding.

Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,

Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
interpretations.  English has several meanings.

This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
taking offense, which may set a person against me.

This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
interests, despite some interests being held in common.

A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
had already built to the point of deafness.

For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
doomed.  ;-)

2.  side attack.

A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
have been private to slobs at .  It can only be an attack on me if it is
copied to iaep at .


Summary

The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
to them.

(As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
Laura.  The proposed policy identifies the same difficulty with the
response team.)

The proposed policy is unsustainable, because we have so few active
people in Sugar Labs.  With GCI and GSoC inactive, most posts are from
myself, Laura, or the oversight board.  It is unlikely there would be
agreement on making a separate response team, and the confidential
nature of the response team would make it hard for them to manage
communication.

Alternatives

However, I welcome any independent third party to assist Laura and
myself to be more charitable in our translations and interpretations,
and defuse what might be seen as mutual harassment born from
misunderstanding.  Others have become silent instead.

As Sugar Labs is so small, I don't expect an independent third party
will make such an offer, so as an alternative I ask that Laura and
others clearly identify any harassment, and in return I'll do the
same.  I've already begun this.  It will increase volume of mailing
list posts, which is unfortunate, but seems necessary.

I recognise that the proposed policy would also protect me, and I
could make a report under the policy; on the issues of employment,
intimidation, and sustained disruption of discussion.

Thank you to the six people who responded privately to my concerns of
harassment, and I hope we can make Sugar Labs a place where you can
speak freely.
---
Hilary Naylor, Ph.D.
www.a2zed.us
Oakland CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20171005/20f4df46/attachment.html>