ND speaks for me.

it was excruciating for Katie, who did apologize

"Consider me schooled" is not an apology, though. If it had been, this might have gone pretty differently.

Java Cat, you don't really seem to be addressing what actually happened here other than the fact that you regret Laura and Katie leaving, and then you seem to have holdover issues from things that you perceive happened in the past (not saying they didn't, but vague).

Saying "One can just let it go..." We'll, no, and that's the point. People in marginalized communities can't just "let it go," because they have to live with it every day. Asking them to "let it go" is not right. A lot of other people have indicated the same thing, most recently, ND and Dana, just now.

I don't really understand what "I choose us," means to you. If you are asking other people to ignore things that matter to them for the sake of "getting along", well, no. That's not how it works.

I've been trying to think of how to reframe this discussion within the context of the board's history, expectations about behavior and moving forward.

I feel like one of the longstanding lubricants of our community is a presumption of Good Faith. I think (and this is just my observation. I'm not asserting it as fact) that a lot of that understanding of "Good Faith" within this community's history involved some combination of Intent and, perhaps, Good Standing within the community (people who have been around for awhile, interacted with everybody etc. Basically all of us at this point, since we haven't had new members for quite some time).

The language to address a warning certainly seems directed towards people who intentionally cause harm or disruption: "Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet."

But I think a space has opened up between our understanding of acting in Good Faith here, and how it has evolved out in the world. Specifically, people who have been given a lot of focus to dismantling privilege and microaggression in their work, community or personal lives have come to the valuation that Impact is more important than Intent.

That people with good intentions can still cause harm because they haven't really examined their prejudices, biases, language, privilege et al. That this causes harm within the community, often to the people who are most vulnerable, and it's often let-slide and gone unaddressed.

That it's not enough to have good intentions, you have to do the work.

So I think one way to move forward is to actively state that in our notion of Board Etiquette. That being a good citizen here requires Good Faith efforts to address an issue when somebody objects to language or statements which are offensive.

Glam has given some good examples of what that would like in real terms.

******** KB/Laura says something without realizing it's problematic.
sj tells them it's problematic and why.
KB/Laura say, "Oh shit. I'm sorry. I see what you're saying and appreciate you letting me know."
Or
"Oh shit, really? I had no idea. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand and would like to so that I don't mess up next time. Could we talk about it here/offline or could you send me a link to an explanation? Thank you so much for speaking up and for helping me understand."
And that would have been the end of it.

**********

Or as somebody else summed up...

Acknowledge the hurt caused, ask how to make it better, and commit to changed behavior going forward.

We can make that an explicit value within our community, and state our expectations on how to respond to these situations as they arise.

So what's the consequence for people who don't apologize or aren't contrite?

Basically some level of opprobrium. Which may not seem enough, but I think - especially in our close community - it stings quite a bit. Having people you respect say, "Hey you, fucked up and you need to make it right" is not easy or comfortable.

I don't think it rises to the formal censure of a Warning unless somebody has been called out an issue ("Hey, I've asked you not to use the word 'gypped' and I've explained why") and the offender keeps using the word or phrase without changing their behavior.

We don't have to frame that as a matter of Intent, we can say, "You're not making a Good Faith effort within community expectations to change your behavior after it's been pointed out as offensive."

I would also note that unlike a workplace, people can choose to not be here. And historically, for various reasons people have often taken a hiatus from the board. Sometimes for a short while, sometimes for years. Sometimes people don't come back.

We can't control that.

So what's the consequence for people who don't apologize or aren't contrite?

I'm not sure of this either. Perhaps the conversation (like this one) will be enough to either:

1. Lead the original misstepper to understanding and apology (ideal outcome).
2. Lead to the original misstepper being too uncomfortable to continue in the community (it sucks, but it's worse IMO to harm minorities and cause them to leave the community).

I think Glamcookie sums up the reality of the situation. We can make up all the scripts we would like for how we can imagine a clean resolution to events but there is no way to expect that people will follow those scripts. We make a decision about how we stand on this issue as a community and then we accept the results. If the decision is that we put a high priority on truly listening and respecting when someone from a marginalized group speaks up then we also need to accept that this carries the consequence that we might see someone leave or curtail their involvement here.

If we make the decision that we want to prioritize the appearance that we all just get along, then that too carries the consequence that we might see others leave or curtail their involvement here. I know it would have an impact on how I feel about the community and my involvement.

We make a decision about how we stand on this issue as a community and then we accept the results. If the decision is that we put a high priority on truly listening and respecting when someone from a marginalized group speaks up then we also need to accept that this carries the consequence that we might see someone leave or curtail their involvement here.

If we make the decision that we want to prioritize the appearance that we all just get along, then that too carries the consequence that we might see others leave or curtail their involvement here. I know I’d would have an impact on how I feel about the community and my involvement.

Thank you for posting this, I had written and deleted about seventeen versions of the same thoughts but couldn't make the words come out right.

We make a decision about how we stand on this issue as a community and then we accept the results. If the decision is that we put a high priority on truly listening and respecting when someone from a marginalized group speaks up then we also need to accept that this carries the consequence that we might see someone leave or curtail their involvement here.

If we make the decision that we want to prioritize the appearance that we all just get along, then that too carries the consequence that we might see others leave or curtail their involvement here. I know I’d would have an impact on how I feel about the community and my involvement.

Well said, and agree. Best to literally make the decision, as in, put it up for a vote somehow? By "somehow" I mean find the language; I'm sure those who have had a lot of involvement with this via work, etc. might have good language, or even examples, we can lift/use. Or careful googling, for that matter. Put it up in the affirmative sense, then vote "yes" or "no" depending on one's position.

And I think Sophia suggested, put some useful links after the statement - definitely the links Glam has shared, for example.

Those are my thoughts on moving this to action. Other thoughts/ideas for same?

But I think a space has opened up between our understanding of acting in Good Faith here, and how it has evolved out in the world. Specifically, people who have been given a lot of focus to dismantling privilege and microaggression in their work, community or personal lives have come to the valuation that Impact is more important than Intent.

That people with good intentions can still cause harm because they haven't really examined their prejudices, biases, language, privilege et al. That this causes harm within the community, often to the people who are most vulnerable, and it's often let-slide and gone unaddressed.

This is such a good summation of a dynamic I'm seeing in practically every space I participate in these days. Would you mind if I shared it? I think it could be helpful and clarifying in some discussions that come up at my work and church, for example.

Post Deleted!