I have been pondering and wondering since I share all of what is mentioned in this thread.
Is it about time that some of us get together for a non-public counter statement calling out OpenCon to clarify this and retract their statement from Nov 2019?
Depending on their reaction or none within a week we can still consider making it public, signed by us as individuals individuals and concerned Open Science enthusiasts.
If we get a critical number of signatories, e.g 20 or more - keeping it short and neutral - I assume we might be successful in having OpenCon responding more precisely or (hopefully) retracting the statement publicly.
3 months down the road is quite some timeâŠ
I agree it is a good idea, but Iâd say we would really need more than 20 signatures to make it weight-effective and visible (up to us to see which people would be ready to). People should also know that the call for transparency on the inquiry and the facts is a call they can already do individually on twitter by tagging @opencon in their tweets. The call has been made already by a number of different individuals, in the early conversations following the announcement of the ban in November, as well as more recently. Am a 100% in for a joint call, that said, and would be happy to contribute to the redaction. I think, itâs important to stress that this call does not question at all the legitimacy of women to speak up in the frame of the MeToo movement, but that we collectively do not want to see shadow decisions go over basic principles of justice in that frame
Ideal would be to have a program where we can manage the versions. I tried to upload it in zenodo, but seems complicated, have to fill all possible informations to get to effectively upload the doc. Github also possible, but is not that user-friendly when having to modify the document. Google doc, otherwise, but then no version management
Feel free to suggest any modification or to restart from another angle if you wish - and also, I am not an English native speaker, so feel free to adjust the language as well Itâs in âcommentâ mode so that the modifications proposed are visible to anyone (you can make modifications directly in the text). You can also create a second version below the existing one in the same document
I would also sign a statement that help rasing concerns over this issue. However, I would like such statement to have an actual impact. I believe that at this point the situation is clear: OpenCon casted the ban on Jon Tennant to follow its internal CoC, but this organisation did not have in place formal and recorded procedures to justify this decision. It is unfortunate but definitely not surprising and I suppose it is the case for many other understaffed, small associations that are not for profit. It is just another confirmation that people who play with these mechanisms do not fully understand the possible consequences, and I think Jon Tennant has done a good thing to respond and raise awareness to this topic.
Having said that, I do not think that a call for transparency from OpenCon would get to anything useful (it is clear that there was no transparent decision-making behind this ban and any information provided from now on it is likely to be fabricated ad-hoc). So what would a useful statement look like? I think people could get together to denounce the lack of accountability and professionality from OpenCon, relating this issue to the whole landscape of associations (rasining awareness on the consequences of such acts: e.g. uncontrolled public shaming) and asking for public apologies from OpenCon as well as for a firm condemnation of the backslash caused by the ban. The ban should not be revoked, in my opnion (unless there is the wish to âpardonâ Jon), but the causes should be stated clearly so that everybody knows what actually happened.
I would like the statement to have the most neutral and professional tone.
Personally, I trust that individuals at and behind OpenCon were acting in the best interest of the people they thought they were representing. And even more so is it important for them to step up to their own high standards with the CoC and reflect and correct the harm they have caused, not only to Jon, but also the wider OS community.
Can we move this to an etherpad of some sort? That way anyone can freely and anonymously co-write this - board.net has versioning - so trolls wonât be able to interfere much
The access to the doc was restricted, so the work went on already, without trolls involved. I think we all agree on the importance of adopting an adequate tone in this statement. Thanks for stressing these last points!
We could easily create a temporary private channel, with approved participants only, here on the forum to continue the discussion. No one will be able to see who joins that channel. Do you want me to create such a space?
@jo.havemannâs concern on privacy is valid given that content on forum.igdore.org nowadays is indexed by search engines.
@vdeherde, yes I tried to access it some days ago, and again now, but didnât have access.
I generally agree with what @Enrico.Fucci wrote here, except for one thing: I think it would be superfluous to ask them to apologise and I think that asking for a apology would make many people focus on that, âthey want OpenCon to apologise to the one who was banned!â, instead of focusing on the more important arguments and perspectives brought forward in the text, such as the case of bullying and public shaming by academics.
This is the right thing to do. My sincere and deepest respect to the Open Science MOOC Steering Committee for taking responsibility for their decision to remove a colleague based on loose rumours and accusations. I believe and hope I would have come to the same decision during similar circumstances. We all make honest mistakes, all the time. Itâs what we do afterwards, when we realise the mistake, that matters. Thank you Open Science MOOC Steering Committee for a brave and honest decision.
Thanks, Rebecca. But, just to clarify, in the post I do not think it says anywhere that removing me was a mistake. Or that they are doing this as their collective responsibility for that decision. More, it seems that it was the operational disturbances caused by the OpenCon statement, and my subsequent removal, that led to the decision.
To further clarify, no one on the SC has told me that they believe removing me/my stepping down was a mistake. I think they were put in a shitty situation, which virtually none of us expected or were prepared for (us = wider open community). And the SC did what they felt was right.
Itâs in âcommentâ mode so that the modifications proposed are visible to anyone (you can make modifications directly in the text). You can also create a second version below the existing one in the same document
