sparcopen / opencon-dei-report Goto Github PK

Excellent example here: https://www.accessnow.org/code-of-conduct/

Also, they have an explicit section about not naming survivors of sexual harassment and assault too which is worth reviewing.

via @lorrainechu3n

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q9p0h7xsvh7c0nscz4lxgr6jf0umnf4uzu530h8https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=64697375083860974505 ODDS PAID BET 🔥
Winning Chanc ➡️99% ✅

Price ➡️1000 RS ✅💵

Incase loss➡️NO REFUND
VIP freee

Don't miss the chance 🔼✅

Contact ➡️ @Smarty_boss

10 SLOTS ONLY 🚫☝️4031630319846969000000000000000000024a9cf0f249609bbc96280ff585ec7c10bb1ce6945639041215663041215663https://m.me/ch/AbaxYVbnNyubSKUC/?send_source=cm%3Acopy_invite_linkhttps://m.me/ch/AbaxYVbnNyubSKUC/?send_source=cm%3Acopy_invite_linkhttps://m.me/ch/AbYKz22-SLTyyCR6/?send_source=cm%3Acopy_invite_linkhttps://m.me/ch/AbYKz22-SLTyyCR6/Beneficiary: Darron Stokes
BIC / SWIFT code: REVOUS31
Account number: 253175351593
Bank Name and Address: Revolut Technologies Inc
33 Irving place, Suite 4013, 10003, New York, United States
Correspondent BIC: CHASGB2L
@professior404$100 Vanilla® Visa® Gift Box Gift Card (plus $5.44 Purchase Fee) https://www.walmart.com/ip/5584402705747339

Consider putting suggestions for apologies in an updated DEI report. Things do go wrong when handling issues, and it's important to apologize when that happens. https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-apology provides a helpful example for this.

Credit @lorrainechu3n again who passed this our way!

data here: sparcopen/opencon#6 (comment)

This will help people contribute in ways that look nice. Not aiming to change actual content or structure here.

@lorrainechu3n & I are considering a new section of the report (or, generally additions) around collecting diversity data/metrics. It might cover things like:

• what to measure (participants, fund allocation, speaker diversity etc)
• the categories to use for different aspects (e.g I know we spent a lot of time choosing our various drop-downs, giving people easy to use lists that might be helpful)
• how to interpret, and not just play a numbers game
• some tools, like sheets we use for the program that people can pick-up & use
• the most (culturally) sensitive ways to ask questions

Currently, we touch on it briefly in the diversity section of the report with a few small tips (e.g. leaving the option to opt out).

I'll be gathering notes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fn4ODrnomyo9StPv_u3tx0W5xGPUaxnvKVGsUMlNV_E/edit?usp=sharing as I dig them out.

Current the header / footer is in the code on every page. It would make it easier to edit / less intimidating to contribute if these where just in one file.

Hi, just saw your resource on accessible & inclusive conference planning shared in my social network as a resource for people starting in the area. May I make a suggestion of something to add to it? Conferences should be scent-free (i.e. no perfume, cologne, body spray). These sorts of scents can have really adverse effects on many people (e.g. migraines, allergies, asthma).

I for one have migraines that are triggered by perfume/cologne/etc and have had to leave more than a few conference sessions because of people in the audience wearing scents. I've gotten migraines at conferences for this reason more reasons than I can count and it really hurts my participation at conferences. I know I'm not alone in this.

Thanks!

In applying the checklist to a FSCI self assessment I noted that two potentials criticism that aren't captured are: 1) the question of whether holding a meeting over a weekend is exclusionary and 2) considerations of the length of events.

For FSCI the length (five days) raised concerns for some and in the past I've frequently been engaged in discussions about those who are excluded by holding an event during the work week (those who volunteer effort in their spare time and can't leave work) or during the weekend (those who work on the topic and shouldn't be expected to take additional time out). There aren't any easy solutions here but raising those issues might be valuable.

This would involve: 1) adding some content to additional.html to address these issues and 2) potentially expanding checklist.html under "Choosing a Date" to explicitly consider the balance of risks for these issues.

I'd be happy to write these sections and submit a pull request but wanted to check in and see if any discussion was merited before doing that.

Nicole has suggested putting the text of the report in a .md file instead of using the Wiki. The upside of this approach is that suggested edits would create a pull request, so we could moderate the edits and publicly discuss our decision to integrate each edit or not. The downside is that it's not as intuitive a process for those not familiar with GitHub. @txtbks is that a fair explanation of this approach? Thoughts on the relative merits of each approach?

We've already gotten some feedback around sexual harassment at OpenCon. This is an upsetting and serious concern...as both a woman and staff member, I want our team to work harder on creating a space that doesn't perpetuate this kind of behaviour and doesn't silence people who are harassed and/or assaulted.

There are some key actions that we detailed in the report (based on the OpenCon 2016 feedback form we sent out last November), but moving forward, I think we need to be more explicit and intentional re: having a conversation about this as an organizing committee. Here are some things I think we should talk about / implement for OpenCon 2017:

Posting this on Github to allow others to participate/contribute:

(1) We need to create a clear definition of what "asked to leave the community" looks like and include this in the code of conduct. Moving forward, I (personally) think that anyone who is reported for sexual harassment will need to leave the conference immediately once we find out about this. They absolutely cannot be invited to future OpenCon events. They will be asked not to participate in community calls, and will not be permitted to host satellite events. We should make sure to make this really clear when announcing the Code of Conduct.

(2) We need to create a channel for anonymous reporting and make it clear that anonymous reports will be dealt with the same level of seriousness and attention — it's scary to report sexual harassment and assault (and many cases often go unreported!). This is feedback that has been provided by community members too. This could look like a google doc or something similar.

(3) I think we need to also think about how to best support those who experience harassment/assault at the meeting (including after hours), if it happens. This might look like having a conversation with the person who files the report — asking them what measures we can take to help them feel safe(r) for the rest of their conference/community experience. This might be trickier for anonymous reports, but could look like a question in the reporting form (e.g. "What can we do to make the rest of your conference experience feel safer?")

(4) We need to make it extremely clear that the code of conduct and anti-harassment policy extends to all aspects of the meeting — including at social events and "after hours". And we need to follow through with enforcing it (and come to an agreement amongst the organizing committee and staff on exactly how enforcement is handled).

(5) Finally, I think we need to better educate ourselves on how to handle these scenarios and create a safer space for our participants. Maybe we can look into finding training for our own staff members on this before OpenCon 2017?

Welcome feedback (you will need to create a Github account to comment on this issue) — or please email me directly at lorraine(at)sparcopen.org

Add additional information in the CoC section of report around framing and communicating seriousness of diversity/anti-harassment policies (rather than "Be friendly")

This will help keep the landing page for our github page clean and simple, and draw a clear line between project docs & site docs