Other notes: -With any person I interviewed, I communicated every step of the way and gave each person multiple times to opt out. I told them who I was and listed my credentials.
-I understand that getting on a Listserv and asking for stories, if there are any, is out of the norm but if you read part one, based on those alleged stories, there seems to be a problem. I weighed going on any Listserv for some time before I did it. I talked it out with others. In the end, it seemed to be the best decision. Covering a story in my opinion, on sexual harassment in libraries is very hard. What does it say when some libraries and associations do not want to talk about it , did not even want to hear the interview questions? -I am just giving you perspective here. Kind Regards, Sunni Battin Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 15, 2019, at 11:19 AM, S B <[email protected]> wrote: > > In at least one initial post early on, I did identify myself. I think this > is a considerate group of professionals and I would like for you to consider > some things: > > -The survey was anonymous. Anyone could have emailed me at any time with > questions on more specifics about the survey and some did and I answered > those questions. I understand that some disagree with the oath I took on > that. I have heard from some of you and in the future, I will make some if > the suggested modifications. > > -Throughout the time of collecting information and writing part one of the > series on sexual harassment in libraries, I received some very critical and > negative messages. In part one of the series, I revealed my own experience > with sexual harassment, outside the library profession, in the author’s note. > I decided to do this at the last moment. When you get your in box filled > with with some mean messages, it is not fun and when you get called out, it > is also not fun. When I revealed my own experience with sexual harassment, > it was certainly my own choice but also putting yourself out there. Even > though I am the writer, I still have a right to privacy and right to protect > myself from in some cases cruel messages. > > -I am human and nothing I ever do will be perfect including parts of the > investigative process. Some things could have done differently and I have > already taken owner that. > > I appreciate you reading this and I hope as you all move forward that you > will take into consideration the thoughts of where a poster is coming from > and that person is human too. > > Grateful, > Sunni Battin > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Natasha Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to identify >> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with legitimate >> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being >> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than >> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that >> intimidation. >> >> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that if >> someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging >> information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations for >> asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would use >> sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for myself when i >> say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation. >> >> >> --- >> Natasha Allen (she/her) >> System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library >> San José State University >> 1 Washington Square >> San José , CA 95192 >> [email protected] >> 408-808-2655 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:23 AM Tom Johnson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy. >>> >>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can >>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both >>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that >>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of posts >>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, any rule >>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and topics. >>> >>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, excluding >>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the discussion >>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be excluded: >>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, but i'd >>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable >>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community. unless >>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy bosses, >>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry very >>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice. >>> >>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to identify >>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with legitimate >>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being >>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than >>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that >>> intimidation. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> tom >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:14 AM Tom Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy. >>>> >>>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can >>>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both >>>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that >>>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of posts >>>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, any >>> rule >>>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and topics. >>>> >>>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, excluding >>>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the >>> discussion >>>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be excluded: >>>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, but >>> i'd >>>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable >>>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community. >>> unless >>>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy bosses, >>>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry >>> very >>>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice. >>>> >>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to >>> identify >>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with >>> legitimate >>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being >>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than >>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that >>>> intimidation. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> tom >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:23 AM Peter Murray <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems like >>>>> there is a good technical reason for doing so. To disallow the >>>>> LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some participant's mail >>> from >>>>> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" status by the >>>>> receiving mail agent). >>>>> >>>>> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good reasons to use >>>>> them (as have been described in other messages in this thread). The >>> use of >>>>> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that signal into >>>>> account as they read and consider the content of the message. I >>> wouldn't >>>>> want to see aliases banned from the list. I think it is also a health >>>>> practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever possible so >>>>> community members get to know each other. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter Murray >>>>> Open Source Community Advocate >>>>> Index Data, LLC >>>>> On Jul 12, 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan <[email protected]>, >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called DMARC, it >>>>> is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have your >>>>> email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a feature. [0] >>>>> Yes, direct replies to an address like >>>>> [email protected] do make it back to the >>>>> original sender, but without some sort of signature can be very >>> difficult >>>>> to know to whom one is replying. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily identifiable. One >>>>> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their >>> affiliation, >>>>> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, and 2) >>>>> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message you can >>>>> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my address >>> is >>>>> [email protected]. The posting above works because there is/was a full >>>>> signature. Postings from [email protected] are difficult to >>>>> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM < >>>>> [email protected]> with no signature I >>> think >>>>> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you are a >>>>> dog." [1] >>>>>> >>>>>> [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp >>>>>> [1] dog - >>>>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
