6 ms·

This sucks, period - there's no two ways about it. Things like this are why I am glad PyCon (us.pycon.org) has a code of conduct in place (https://us.pycon.org/

by jnoller 14y ago

This sucks, period - there's no two ways about it. Things like this are why I am glad PyCon (us.pycon.org) has a code of conduct in place (https://us.pycon.org/2012/codeofconduct/ https://us.pycon.org/2012/codeofconduct/) which is enforced by staff. There is no place for this type of behavior, anywhere. I am sorry this happened to you Julia, it should not have, and the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference.

tatsuke95 14y ago
>"and the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference." So just assume guilt and throw him out, sans investigation? That's completely unreasonable and why these are sticky situations. It isn't black and white. Even with an air-tight sexual harassment policy, you can't automatically assume that the accused is in the wrong.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Not blinking doesn't mean that one can't investigate. It just means that one shouldn't flinch at it.
  - jnoller 14y ago
    What wpietri said - conference and other event organizers need to not balk at taking action, investigation, etc. This is a problem, and not a world I want my wife or two daughters to be part of, that simple.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      Original quote: >"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference." Shoot first, ask questions later? This is a problem, and not a world I want my wife or children to be part of, that simple.
      - wpietri 14y ago
        That's one way to interpret that, but not the only way. You shouldn't complain about someone potentially rushing to judgment at the same time you're rushing to judgment.
        tatsuke95 14y ago
        Oh, I see. You're interested in having an argument about the semantics of a straight forward sentence. >"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference." Not much to "interpret" there. I've been wrong before, but I'll bet he meant exactly what he said; this individual should have been removed from the conference immediately. That's all well and good for a discussion on an internet message board, but in reality it could be extremely harmful to reputations, both of the accused and the conference. Now, if jnoller meant what you are implying he meant, he could have easily written: the conference organizers should not have blinked before [taking action/investigating/speaking with/questioning etc] the [accused] party. or even: the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty. And that's something I could support. I think the conference representative's reaction to such a major accusation was reprehensible. But that isn't what he wrote. And I really don't think that's what he meant, either. Note the language. Responsible? At what point was that determined? And by the way: jumping to conclusions about a sexual harassment charge is dangerous, and not at all analogous to doing the same with regards to a sentence on HackerNews.
        jnoller 14y ago
        Even though it's against my better judgement to keep this thread going, I'll hopefully clarify something for people reading this later. In short; you're right - I could have spent more time wording it differently, and your second proposed text: > "the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty." Is closest to my thoughts on this. However, I feel the second half of that - "determined to be guilty" puts a flair on the statement that ignores the knowledge expressed in the article from the conference organizer - namely they expressed to the author prior knowledge that this individual might be a known issue and therefore, the second portion of your sentence puts an undue burden of doubt on the author's claims. For the sake of clarity; here's the exact steps I would have taken as a conference chair for a conference sitting at around 2500 attendees: 1> Once approached, I would have immediately noted the code of conduct outlining our policy and thoughts on issues such as this, and explained that we would immediately look into the situation, as the accusations are indeed serious, and taken seriously. 2> I would take copious notes and asked the author to confirm my summary of the events. If they were serious enough, I would then ask if the author wished for me to summon law enforcement. 3> If a No was indicated to #2 - I would ask for any witnesses and immediately pull the accused party aside, without the attendance of the accuser, with at least one other senior staff member to ask the accuser about the events, and once again point out the stated code of conduct and ask for their side of events. During the investigation portion of this, the accused would not be allowed to speak or represent the conference in any way, to allow that would further open the door to further risk or an implicit endorsement of the actions under investigation. 4> If, upon discussing with senior staff, and any witnesses we felt that the issue being faced violated with our outlined code of conduct and indeed created a hostile environment, I would ask the accused to leave the conference per the stated code of conduct. "Without blinking" was indeed meant to "take action" without blinking - whether that is to immediately pull all parties aside to investigate and discuss, or eject the accused. However with the evidence provided in the post - most notably the fact that the conference organizer(s) seemingly knew that this individual posed a problem prior to the events occurring, I would have a responsibility to immediately act and isolate the accused to discuss, and in all probability ask them to leave. A "zero tolerance policy" has a bad name in the news due to the concerns you outline. It does not, however, have to be enacted in the way we are all familiar with - namely skipping the investigation and discussion portion. I wouldn't want my child or myself ejected from school stupidly from school or an event due to some written zero tolerance policy without discussion and proper investigation - I would not do that to anyone else. I hope that helps.
mhurron 14y ago
Could you take a closer look at that Code of Conduct? I'm having trouble finding the part where it says they'll take action over events that happen outside the conference. Event organizers are responsible for events that occur at the event. They are not there to police attendees both at and away from the event.
- lambda 14y ago
  It says "all attendees are expected to show respect and courtesy to other attendees throughout the conference and at all conference events, whether officially sponsored by PyCon or not." I think that an unofficial meet up for beer would count as a conference event, despite not being officially sponsored by PyCon. There is no need to split hairs here. Unacceptable behavior does not suddenly become acceptable as soon as you walk out the door of the convention center. These informal meetups at a bar afterwards are still part of the sphere of events related to the conference. And heck, even if it was somewhere completely unrelated to the conference, we should probably try to do something; for instance, if someone has been harassing me at other conferences, and I know they are likely to show up to another one, I may ask the organizers to forbid them based on their past behavior, even if it never happened at that particular conference. This isn't to say that event organizers need to "police" anything. No one is asking them to do that. No one is asking them to keep an eye on every talk, and immediately expel someone who makes an off color comment. What's being requested is that a policy is put in place to define unacceptable behavior and its consequences, so when something truly unacceptable does happen, you know what to do about it, instead of just shrugging and saying "that sucks, but I can't really do anything."
  - mhurron 14y ago
    >Unacceptable behavior does not suddenly become acceptable as soon as you walk out the door Nope, but the sphere of influence of the conference organizer does. >think that an unofficial meet up for beer would count as a conference event ... >These informal meetups at a bar afterwards are still part of the sphere of events related to the conference. I suppose so would paying a hooker and taking her back to your room or buying any number of drugs would fall under the convention organizers watchful eye as well? What about cheating on your significant other? After all you wouldn't have done either of those things there if it hadn't been for your attending the conference. While we're extending the conference attenders authority perhaps they should kick out those that don't tip enough at the dinner they have after the conference, or at the bar they went to afterwards. You are trying to make it seem like splitting hairs, but it is not. The conference organizers only have any 'authority' over the conference and what happens at the conference. You are trying to extend that authority to basically anything that happens between conference attendees at any time or place during the days of the conference. >we should probably try to do something This phrase never, ever prefaces the right course of action. >has been harassing me at other conferences, and I know they are likely to show up to another one, I may ask the organizers to forbid them based on their past behavior, even if it never happened at that particular conference Sounds like a personal problem. One that should be handled personally, like, oh I don't know, choosing not to attend. You are now attempting to wield unrelated things as weapons against someone. Why stop at the conference, why not petition the airline not to sell this person a ticket? Or the hotel not to rent him a room? Or the rental car company not to loan him a car? After all, something should be done. In your example, and in the event in the blog post, the group that should be 'doing something' about it is the person impacted by it, not the convention organizers. She walked off. She then tried to escalate her personal problem to others. That is inappropriate behavior as well, and it is asking convention organizers to police the actions of attendees.

by jnoller 14y ago

tatsuke95 14y ago

>"and the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference." So just assume guilt and throw him out, sans investigation? That's completely unreasonable and why these are sticky situations. It isn't black and white. Even with an air-tight sexual harassment policy, you can't automatically assume that the accused is in the wrong.

wpietri 14y ago
Not blinking doesn't mean that one can't investigate. It just means that one shouldn't flinch at it.
- jnoller 14y ago
  What wpietri said - conference and other event organizers need to not balk at taking action, investigation, etc. This is a problem, and not a world I want my wife or two daughters to be part of, that simple.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    Original quote: >"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference." Shoot first, ask questions later? This is a problem, and not a world I want my wife or children to be part of, that simple.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      That's one way to interpret that, but not the only way. You shouldn't complain about someone potentially rushing to judgment at the same time you're rushing to judgment.
      - tatsuke95 14y ago
        Oh, I see. You're interested in having an argument about the semantics of a straight forward sentence. >"the conference organizers should not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference." Not much to "interpret" there. I've been wrong before, but I'll bet he meant exactly what he said; this individual should have been removed from the conference immediately. That's all well and good for a discussion on an internet message board, but in reality it could be extremely harmful to reputations, both of the accused and the conference. Now, if jnoller meant what you are implying he meant, he could have easily written: the conference organizers should not have blinked before [taking action/investigating/speaking with/questioning etc] the [accused] party. or even: the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty. And that's something I could support. I think the conference representative's reaction to such a major accusation was reprehensible. But that isn't what he wrote. And I really don't think that's what he meant, either. Note the language. Responsible? At what point was that determined? And by the way: jumping to conclusions about a sexual harassment charge is dangerous, and not at all analogous to doing the same with regards to a sentence on HackerNews.
        jnoller 14y ago
        Even though it's against my better judgement to keep this thread going, I'll hopefully clarify something for people reading this later. In short; you're right - I could have spent more time wording it differently, and your second proposed text: > "the conference organizers should have investigated, then not have blinked before ejecting the responsible party from the conference if determined to be guilty." Is closest to my thoughts on this. However, I feel the second half of that - "determined to be guilty" puts a flair on the statement that ignores the knowledge expressed in the article from the conference organizer - namely they expressed to the author prior knowledge that this individual might be a known issue and therefore, the second portion of your sentence puts an undue burden of doubt on the author's claims. For the sake of clarity; here's the exact steps I would have taken as a conference chair for a conference sitting at around 2500 attendees: 1> Once approached, I would have immediately noted the code of conduct outlining our policy and thoughts on issues such as this, and explained that we would immediately look into the situation, as the accusations are indeed serious, and taken seriously. 2> I would take copious notes and asked the author to confirm my summary of the events. If they were serious enough, I would then ask if the author wished for me to summon law enforcement. 3> If a No was indicated to #2 - I would ask for any witnesses and immediately pull the accused party aside, without the attendance of the accuser, with at least one other senior staff member to ask the accuser about the events, and once again point out the stated code of conduct and ask for their side of events. During the investigation portion of this, the accused would not be allowed to speak or represent the conference in any way, to allow that would further open the door to further risk or an implicit endorsement of the actions under investigation. 4> If, upon discussing with senior staff, and any witnesses we felt that the issue being faced violated with our outlined code of conduct and indeed created a hostile environment, I would ask the accused to leave the conference per the stated code of conduct. "Without blinking" was indeed meant to "take action" without blinking - whether that is to immediately pull all parties aside to investigate and discuss, or eject the accused. However with the evidence provided in the post - most notably the fact that the conference organizer(s) seemingly knew that this individual posed a problem prior to the events occurring, I would have a responsibility to immediately act and isolate the accused to discuss, and in all probability ask them to leave. A "zero tolerance policy" has a bad name in the news due to the concerns you outline. It does not, however, have to be enacted in the way we are all familiar with - namely skipping the investigation and discussion portion. I wouldn't want my child or myself ejected from school stupidly from school or an event due to some written zero tolerance policy without discussion and proper investigation - I would not do that to anyone else. I hope that helps.

mhurron 14y ago

Could you take a closer look at that Code of Conduct? I'm having trouble finding the part where it says they'll take action over events that happen outside the conference. Event organizers are responsible for events that occur at the event. They are not there to police attendees both at and away from the event.

lambda 14y ago
It says "all attendees are expected to show respect and courtesy to other attendees throughout the conference and at all conference events, whether officially sponsored by PyCon or not." I think that an unofficial meet up for beer would count as a conference event, despite not being officially sponsored by PyCon. There is no need to split hairs here. Unacceptable behavior does not suddenly become acceptable as soon as you walk out the door of the convention center. These informal meetups at a bar afterwards are still part of the sphere of events related to the conference. And heck, even if it was somewhere completely unrelated to the conference, we should probably try to do something; for instance, if someone has been harassing me at other conferences, and I know they are likely to show up to another one, I may ask the organizers to forbid them based on their past behavior, even if it never happened at that particular conference. This isn't to say that event organizers need to "police" anything. No one is asking them to do that. No one is asking them to keep an eye on every talk, and immediately expel someone who makes an off color comment. What's being requested is that a policy is put in place to define unacceptable behavior and its consequences, so when something truly unacceptable does happen, you know what to do about it, instead of just shrugging and saying "that sucks, but I can't really do anything."
- mhurron 14y ago
  >Unacceptable behavior does not suddenly become acceptable as soon as you walk out the door Nope, but the sphere of influence of the conference organizer does. >think that an unofficial meet up for beer would count as a conference event ... >These informal meetups at a bar afterwards are still part of the sphere of events related to the conference. I suppose so would paying a hooker and taking her back to your room or buying any number of drugs would fall under the convention organizers watchful eye as well? What about cheating on your significant other? After all you wouldn't have done either of those things there if it hadn't been for your attending the conference. While we're extending the conference attenders authority perhaps they should kick out those that don't tip enough at the dinner they have after the conference, or at the bar they went to afterwards. You are trying to make it seem like splitting hairs, but it is not. The conference organizers only have any 'authority' over the conference and what happens at the conference. You are trying to extend that authority to basically anything that happens between conference attendees at any time or place during the days of the conference. >we should probably try to do something This phrase never, ever prefaces the right course of action. >has been harassing me at other conferences, and I know they are likely to show up to another one, I may ask the organizers to forbid them based on their past behavior, even if it never happened at that particular conference Sounds like a personal problem. One that should be handled personally, like, oh I don't know, choosing not to attend. You are now attempting to wield unrelated things as weapons against someone. Why stop at the conference, why not petition the airline not to sell this person a ticket? Or the hotel not to rent him a room? Or the rental car company not to loan him a car? After all, something should be done. In your example, and in the event in the blog post, the group that should be 'doing something' about it is the person impacted by it, not the convention organizers. She walked off. She then tried to escalate her personal problem to others. That is inappropriate behavior as well, and it is asking convention organizers to police the actions of attendees.