2 ms·
This was a better post than I was expecting. It's written from the heart, and from a non-dismissive standpoint. Worth reading the whole thing. I really liked t
by phyzome 9y ago
This was a better post than I was expecting. It's written from the heart, and from a non-dismissive standpoint. Worth reading the whole thing.
I really liked the example about accessibility. It's a great point—organizations should be honest with themselves about what they can actually offer.
I disagreed with some other parts, in particular the part about how a lot of orgs aren't actually prepared to handle harassment complaints professionally. While that's definitely something to work on, I think that's something that's going to be true for many orgs regardless of whether they have a CoC. Not welcoming people to come forward with complaints is... probably worse, right? Or am I missing something?
- nitwit005 9y agoIf someone feels they aren't capable of handling harassment issues, they're probably correct. Handing off the job to someone incapable does seem like an issue. In general, telling an organization they need a process for something doesn't work out unless they genuinely buy into the idea. It tends to result in a bunch of process documents getting written, but no practical changes to how things are run.
- phyzome 9y agoYeah, I think my big take-away from this document is: If you're going to have a CoC, you'd better be able to stand by what you say in it. Don't just copy-paste from someone else's and thereby unthinkingly overpromise.