Yes. Shunning is a serious mid characterization of what I’ve seen. Katie was called out - or in - and Laura’s comments were identified right from the start as a question of unfortunate timing as much as anything. We know and love them and many of us have expressed our dismay at the choices they’ve both made, first to respond and then to leave in this manner.

But I don’t know how you fix that. Several people have gone to great lengths to couch the discussion in terms of good faith, history, and kindness. But unless you accept that something you did hurt someone (and sj is telling you it did! glam and others are telling you it did!) then I don’t know what anyone else can do to fix it. When you hurt someone you apologize and you try to understand how to not do that. That’s all. That has to be the standard.

I guess my question is, is there a consensus that we want to have a statement in favor of inclusion or any more guidance than "be polite" or anyone willing to take up that to vote OR do with think that we actually followed our guidance which is 1. Bring it up in thread 2. If it is not brought up the thread bring it to bureacracy

I think that the situation was actually handled well as a board after a few missteps, some of which I made, but I understand how it can seem hurtful to all parties. Heck, I am a little hurt by java cat's characterization of what I said as "making scripts for them". My intention was to provide a future solution for if this happens again, and maybe make it easier, but my impact was not that and I am sorry for that.

To me, that is a productive conversation to have now, and not more processing. I wanted to make sure we didn't leave people hanging and feeling uncomfortable without a resolution.

Java, they were treated with care and concern and an attempt to expand on the issue so that they'd understand both what the hurt was and why their responses were dismissive. They chose to be defensive and leave. No one came even remotely close to chasing them away or shunning them. As you noted, beloved veterans of the board.

I agree with sj that it wan't a pile-on. I would also wager that several people chose specifically NOT to comment because they didn't want to appear to be piling on, especially when those who did comment did a really careful and clear job of voicing the issues. I think Trudy is right that it can feel aggressive when one's knee-jerk response is defensiveness (hello, myself!) but the reality is, it wasn't.

I think this all goes to supporting ND's point. Everyone wanted and was expecting a totally different outcome here, but that didn't happen. There were no pitchforks and torches, as -t noted, and yet, two people still chose to walk away. That's 100% their right and their choice. It is heartbreaking, but it happened. My hope and belief is that time might lead to a return and reconciliation with understanding.

But unless you accept that something you did hurt someone (and sj is telling you it did! glam and others are telling you it did!) then I don’t know what anyone else can do to fix it. When you hurt someone you apologize and you try to understand how to not do that. That’s all. That has to be the standard.

And brenda's close is the truth of it.

To me, that is a productive conversation to have now, and not more processing. I wanted to make sure we didn't leave people hanging and feeling uncomfortable without a resolution.

So, my comment above was kind of ill-timed with this (oops!), but I think you're absolutely right. I think Cindy made this point, too, and a few other people.

1. Bring it up in thread 2. If it is not brought up the thread bring it to bureacracy

I think this is the basic right of it, but maybe state clearly that talking about it in Burea if further discussion seems warranted isn't (necessarily) an escalation... just a lateral move. And, I mean, also that "Hey, can we take this to email privately?" or whatever is also a completely acceptable request. That is, taking a specific discussion to email - doesn't mean a general conversation for whoever has a thing to say or ask is prohibited or anything.

What Brenda said. (And much more succinctly than the jumble in my head.)

Sophia, I think we did follow our guidance to bring it up in thread and discuss there. I don't think we need a change in that policy. (I think for future reference we should keep in mind that any request to move the discussion is likely to feel like an escalation whether intended or not). It's been ages since I've looked at whatever we had for community guidelines. It's probably worth looking at that to make sure that we are intentionally inclusive. That may also be a place to include some of the resources that have been linked during this discussion.

x-post with Jen P

I also had a typo-

2. If it is not RESOLVED in the thread, bring it to Bureau.

I think it is a slight deviation from the current rules, because the point of the Warn, Temporary Ban, Ban was actually created to STOP discussion because the discussion always seemed poisonous. So we would just need three people to request a warning, and the person was warned, no discussion.

Do we still want to follow that, or open it for more discussion- because the problem with discussion is that, to Trudy's point, it still FEELS like a pile on and it gets somewhat uncomfortable. However, the prevailing thought, at least in the DEI work I have done at work, is that we have to be uncomfortable to grow- so I am very torn.

It was to stop intentional provocation and troll-like behavior in the thread. Since we didn't have that happening, working to resolve in the thread was appropriate.

As to feeling like a pile on... unless only the first 10 posters to a topic get to comment I'm not sure there is a way to address that. We're talky and everyone has an opinion. And in this instance it was mostly people trying to help.

Sophia, I think we did follow our guidance to bring it up in thread and discuss there. I don't think we need a change in that policy.

It was to stop intentional provocation and troll-like behavior in the thread. Since we didn't have that happening, working to resolve in the thread was appropriate.

I think these are correct. The community did step up and address it in-thread and people were pretty gentle in their corrections.

Our policy about Warnings (as I recall - I could be wrong) did not seem to kick in until there was a repeated, troll like behavior. Where there was some assessment of intent.

But that would have been the next step, I think, if it was warranted. (I don't think it is in this instance, but that's just one vote.)

The thing is, we have dealt with people being offended or hurt in the past. It hasn't happened in a while, but the things we put in place to deal with it, are how we dealt with it.

What we have never had, and I'm not sure if people are asking for that now, is an insistence on contrition or amends as a condition of staying here.

It is expected as a matter of etiquette, but has never been required.

I agree David.

It's been ages since I've looked at whatever we had for community guidelines. It's probably worth looking at that to make sure that we are intentionally inclusive. That may also be a place to include some of the resources that have been linked during this discussion.

I think this is a good place to start.

but maybe state clearly that talking about it in Burea if further discussion seems warranted isn't (necessarily) an escalation... just a lateral move. And, I mean, also that "Hey, can we take this to email privately?" or whatever is also a completely acceptable request. That is, taking a specific discussion to email - doesn't mean a general conversation for whoever has a thing to say or ask is prohibited or anything.

And this.

However, I literally cannot find the FAQ or site etiquette pages. I think I might be losing it.