[IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs
ccosse at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 19:49:00 EDT 2017
Even in peaceful New Mexico my inbox is full of this discussion, so please
allow me to at least share a link to a Dictionary of English Idioms
@Hilary, thanks for figuring out what was even going on! I searched for a
reference to anyone's "mother" and skimmed right over "run to mommie". It
did not even occur to me that that was the refernce, because I understand
it as an idiom immediately and automatically.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Naylor <hnaylor at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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"!
> ---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 .
> 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
> 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.
> Oakland CA
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IAEP