[LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:54:01 +1100 · > I _thought_ that we, the opensource community had decided that we were

-- 
dwmw2
From  jason_at_jasonjgw.net Date: 2 Wed, 2011 Feb
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.150])
	by cavan.codon.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>)
	id 1PkURt-0007hS-Qp
	for mjg59_at_codon.org.uk; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:13 +0000
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from pip.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.83]:34267)
	by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25)
	with esmtp id 1PkURu-0004iz-r2 (Exim 4.72) for mjg59_at_codon.org.uk
	(return-path <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:10 +0000
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.152])
	by pip.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71 #1 (Debian))
	id 1PkURr-0000Rs-KP
	for <mjg59_at_srcf.ucam.org>; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:08 +0000
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: score -1.0 from SpamAssassin-3.3.1-1052462 
 *  0.8 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail
 * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 *      [score: 0.0000]
 *  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
 *      valid
 *  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from lionfish.followtheflow.org ([202.158.218.249]:49214)
	by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (mx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.149]:25)
	with esmtp (csa=unknown) id 1PkURp-0003Nq-Ew (Exim 4.72) for mjg59_at_srcf.ucam.org
	(return-path <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 04:36:07 +0000
Received: from localhost.linux.org.au ([127.0.0.1] helo=lionfish.followtheflow.org)
	by lionfish.followtheflow.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>)
	id 1PkUPb-0002X3-Ja; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:33:47 +1100
Received: from ppp203-122-198-234.lns6.adl6.internode.on.net
	([203.122.198.234] helo=jdc.jasonjgw.net)
	by lionfish.followtheflow.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <jason_at_jasonjgw.net>) id 1PkUPZ-0002Wy-Jd
	for chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:33:45 +1100
Received: by jdc.jasonjgw.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 4C099180020DC; Wed,  2 Feb 2011 15:33:43 +1100 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=jasonjgw.net; s=mail;
	t=1296621223; bh=juo8LuKTMfzRYV2eTlymZ6OidoS9v/b1Q40aJhFejYc=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	Content-Type:In-Reply-To;
	b=KJ/Y1Yny1/02oeu4CYSl2ZMDesRYBCtwRb/baZSWqrHXpKNTL8UO82uiX4B+MHs8U
	zo2t60pw3pRl4B0DGX+TNB+2HHDXP63IZSYoIS5WiVDFV4Dlw2E7wZttAj0dXoItWu
	c1bUz4x0hYHHziEFxjg1rkuMam8FmmYD8jl4OWto=
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:33:43 +1100
From: Jason White <jason_at_jasonjgw.net>
To: chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
Message-ID: <20110202043343.GA20337_at_jdc.jasonjgw.net>
References: <1296461607.5278.231.camel_at_russell-laptop>
	<AANLkTinwRZEvX5pADfKqwM_VoCMVTwpu9h46jzWkK9j9_at_mail.gmail.com>
	<1296552412.13656.384.camel_at_russell-laptop>
	<AANLkTi=JnCFoM8w0pexoBm58uEOe2hKaMZ0nVgSLpjwm_at_mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=JnCFoM8w0pexoBm58uEOe2hKaMZ0nVgSLpjwm_at_mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
Reply-To: LCA2011 Delegates Chat <chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>
List-Id: LCA2011 Delegates Chat <chat.lca2011.linux.org.au>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/options/chat>,
	<mailto:chat-request_at_lca2011.linux.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.followtheflow.org/pipermail/chat>
List-Post: <mailto:chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au>
List-Help: <mailto:chat-request_at_lca2011.linux.org.au?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/listinfo/chat>,
	<mailto:chat-request_at_lca2011.linux.org.au?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
Errors-To: chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 131.111.8.150
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chat-bounces_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on cavan.codon.org.uk
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-ASN: AS786 131.111.0.0/16
Subject: Re: [LCA2011-Chat] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:23:21 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cavan.codon.org.uk)
Content-Length: 1063
Valerie Aurora <valerie.aurora_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I'd agree that getting people to read it is a problem. :)
Inevitably it is, just as there are people who assent to contracts without
reading their terms fully, let alone understanding them. I would also hope
that increasing participation by women (and members of other groups who may be
discrimianted against) combined with greater awareness of the issues can
result in cultural change. I don't have rigorous empirical evidence for this,
but I would expect people to be less likely to behave in a violent,
exploitative, discriminatory or prejudiced fashion when they know they're
surrounded by colleagues who overwhelmingly disapprove of such conduct.
Policies certainly help in giving conference organizers means of addressing
transgressions, while offering participants clear guidance as to what is
expected (unfortunately, for some, this isn't obvious).
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
Chat_at_lca2011.linux.org.au
http://lists.followtheflow.org/mailman/listinfo/chat