[TriLUG] Palmer for another SC term; proposed amendment to the bylaws

Cristóbal Palmer cmp at cmpalmer.org
Fri Apr 26 14:54:43 EDT 2013



On Friday, April 26, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Roy Vestal wrote:

> I don't see how this proposal will help TriLUG's
> "gender imbalance".


First off, thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you put the gender imbalance in scare quotes. It's a real thing and a problem. You don't have to see how an anti-harassment policy will help or even believe that it will. If you don't see the harm...
  
> I don't necessarily see it hurting either,  


… which you don't, then you should simply defer to the many women, in the form of the Ada Initiative and other groups and individuals that have said that this is a helpful thing to do.

  
> I find there just aren't as many women interested in this field as the
> men.


There is not solid evidence for this. In fact, women express frustration that they don't feel comfortable pursuing their tech interests because of sexism and misogyny they experience. This claim boils down to saying that it's not our fault, and there clearly are components to the gender imbalance that are our (collective) fault.

  
> Now the fact that there are women who don't want to come to a TriLUG  
> event because of males of the species being stupid jerks, that's a  
> different story. I do know there are guys in any organization that are  
> just jerks. I won't call them "men" because they don't respect others,  
> and I won't give them respect they don't deserve.


Good sentiment.
  
>  
>  
> As for the specific wording of the proposal, it is very limiting and I  
> believe will, in the end, cause folks that you want to keep in the  
> group, actually leave TriLUG.
>  

Who are these people that will leave TriLUG? Are they individuals or a class of people? If a class, what about the existing document is alienating to that class? I think you need to give us some evidence to back up this claim.

  
>  
> As a silly example, I wouldn't be able to pick on Tanner about servers  
> (ahh the days of old), or Tarus about his hats, or Kevin about his going  
> to the "dark" side, because that could be construed by someone as  
> "offensive verbal comments related to [their]... physical appearance...  
> or technical background" […] I've seen this happen with other volunteer groups that have enacted similar policies to the point the group just folded.


We've already had the conversation about dropping "technical background" and may do that. I don't see (a) why it's important to preserve your comfort in picking on people, or (b) why the examples you gave would actually result in those people complaining to the SC based on the anti-harassment policy as written. If they were to complain, then we would investigate per an enforcement procedure that we will have adopted.

I still don't see what individuals or class of people will be alienated. Please articulate who we'll be scaring off. Please also name a group that has folded and your evidence that adoption of an anti-harassment policy was part of the reason for the group's decline.
  
>  
>  
> I appreciate, and applaud the work that Christobol put into this. I  
> think his point of civility, respect, and encouragement to follow this  
> common sense approach is right on the mark, AND I believe each TriLUG  
> member should use it as a standard and guide, and should hold  
> themselves, and their fellow members to it, when at a TriLUG event.


Thanks. I appreciate that. I've put a lot of hours into this. My name is Cristóbal, by the way.
  
>  
> However, I believe adding this as a bylaw will cause unintentional  
> consequences down the road. More tension, and less relaxed times with  
> fellow linux enthusiasts, and geeks (yes I are one!).


I disagree. I think this is one part of a larger set of efforts that will allow more people to have a comfortable, relaxed time at TriLUG events.
  
>  
> I'll put it this way, you can't legislate morality, nor common sense,


Firstly, this isn't legislation. These are proposed policies for a 501(c)(3).

Secondly, we can and do legislate morality. Murder is a felony. Slavery is illegal. We can and do legislate common sense. You must have your restaurant inspected for health risks before you can legally open it to the public. You may not dump your trash on the shoulder of the highway.

  
>  
> What I'm suggesting is that all TriLUG'ers follow this policy on the  
> honor system, but don't vote it into the bylaws.


The problem with that is that there are no teeth, and that means any person who is going to step up and call somebody out who is acting badly needs to be remarkably strong-willed and ready for the worst. The reality is that I haven't met anybody who is or has been on the SC who is willing to do that kind of thing now. Having the policy as part of the bylaws means that if we really do have to call somebody out, we have the power of the whole LUG behind the callout.

Now, for those worried about us abusing that power… I'm still stewing on that and will have a post on that later. Possibly next week. Given the current climate, which includes a remarkable lack of respect for the 4th amendment, abuse of power is worth worrying about. Again, I plan to address that concern more directly and fully at a later date.
  
>  
> Just my $0.02. Please, keep the change,


I can't speak for everyone, but I'm happy to have you participating and I recognize that you want to have a thriving LUG. We might disagree on how that should happen, but that's what we both want.

I'd encourage you to recognize that people who have been looking at the particular problems of gender for a long time have had lots of conversations and collected lots of evidence. They are offering us some fantastic Creative Commons licensed materials that are part of the larger work of addressing gender (and other) issues. I think we should follow their lead and see where that gets us.

Thanks again,
--  
Cristóbal Palmer
cmpalmer.org






More information about the TriLUG mailing list