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

Fri Apr 26 16:13:49 EDT 2013

Cristobal, I apologize for the misspelling of your name. To quote a 
colleague of mine, "I math well. I don't English good, but I math well". ;)

---------

I didn't use scary quotes. I was just quoting your words. But as I read 
the conversation and the proposed , you are proposing a harassment 
policy to fix gender imbalance. They are different things. Harassment is 
harassment, regardless of gender. Gender imbalance is just that, more of 
either men or women in a group.

My point here is a harassment policy won't fix a gender imbalance. The 
only way to fix a gender imbalance is get more of the gender that 
missing involved. In this case, more women involved with TriLUG. They 
have to want to come to the meetings. Now your point of harassment, yes, 
we, as men, have to make it a place that a woman would feel welcomed. 
Obviously we both agree that harassment would curtail this, but I don't 
believe that is why most women don't come to TriLUG. My wife, as an 
example, is a unix person. But she has no desire to go to a meeting to 
talk about unix. Why? Because she just doesn't want to, that's it. I 
believe that is more of why there are more men than women at a TriLUG 
meeting.

---------

You did misquote me a little which does change the context of my 
statement. I said "In MY 23+ years of experience in the IT field, I find 
there just aren't as many women interested in this field as the men."  
The central point being my experience. I've seen the numbers trend 
upward, and I think that's fantastic. Maybe we move in different circles.

---------

"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."

This is a tired argument. If it was only the IT field, then I'd feel 
differently, but you can say this about ALL industries where men are 
more prevalent than women. The problem won't be solved by a policy, but 
when the men step up and tell the jerks "Stop it. Not going to happen 
when I'm around". I done this many times, and as a dad of 2 girls, I'm 
even more protective now than I was 10 to 15 years ago.

---------

"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"

Well, me for one. I won't leave per-say, but I will move away even more 
away from the group. One of the things that I found enjoyable when I 
could get to a meeting was to chew the fat with some of the guys I know 
and poke fun, both at them and vice versa, not in any harassing way mind 
you, but in a goofy "guy" way. This policy, in my opinion, would cause 
folks like me to think twice about coming because we might offend 
someone by picking on our friends. Maybe I'm the only one.

---------

As for the other things, I listed my experience with other volunteer 
organizations, some of which when this type of policy was enacted, 
changed the way the organization worked and made it feel tense, where 
people didn't feel they could be themselves. Eventually, this led to the 
demise of some of these organizations.

I've never had that feeling with TriLUG and I don't want to take the 
chance. If something like this might cause that feeling of freedom and 
liberty to be removed from even one membe then I don't think it's a good 
idea. I don't believe in this organization I'm the only person that has 
this opinion.

The main, overarching point I was making, not at Cristobal because he 
truly gets it, but to all the other men in TriLUG: Stand up and say 
"Stop it you jerk! That's not going to happen while you're around me and 
my friends!" (referring to harassment of course). It shouldn't take a 
policy to get you to stand up for the rest of us.

-Roy

On 4/26/13 2:54 PM, Cristóbal Palmer wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>