(no subject)
Jun. 20th, 2022 06:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amazonvI am disappointed by the way people behave around incidents anymore
Over the weekend there was an incident at BSides Cleveland
The event had a person who has been barred from another event as a speaker, but had them listed as "special guest speaker" and obfuscated who it was
Speakers, after the special guest speaker, reacted by pulling their talks (I support this)
Some attendees asked for accountability (I support this)
What I am disappointed by
What I don't support is the very rapid demand that the event immediately provide a full apology and root cause analysis (RCA), and/or remove all organizers, and the "parent" organization (which is a loose parent org, much like a fraternity or sorority office that can de-associate a chapter but doesn't have direct control to disband the thing itself just remove it's name) immediately make a statement and take action, and that sponsors immediately respond and take action.
Why?
first, yes the event should recognize they need to do IR and RCA, but true apologies need to apologize for something specific and detail how they will prevent future occurrences. by demanding and rushing the "outcome" people lack knowledge of exactly what did happen, who knew what when, and the opportunity for a thoughtful outcome.
these events are volunteers, overworked, and chaos - is this an excuse for what happened, no. it is saying you need to give chaotic groups a chance to figure out what happened? who knew? was it everyone? was it a few people?
Next, sponsors often do not know event specifics, asking them to respond immediately is unfair, i think asking them to respond and giving them time would be fair, also likely their money is already spent they aren't getting it back. ask them to please make a statement and give them time to look at what happened, and let them make it.
finally, by saying the speakers who pulled did the right thing you potentially are punishing or thinking poorly of the speakers who went before, or who were unaware why the special guest was controversial (not everyone keeps up with our missing stairs and bad actors in the community). We should thank those who did step down but don't say thats what speakers have to do.
so, do i think what happened was right? no do i think it needed a IR yes. IMO did it need an apology and actions, yes - and there was.
the organizer stepped down, they are seeking new organizers and the main group is going to help it recover if it wants to and new organizers step up.
but as an all volunteer community, people do need to step up.
I am not against accountability, but we are too fast to demand a solution and an outcome, IMO, we need to demand they (sponsor, speakers, event, orgs) agree to do RCA and then respond, and in a timely manner, but with all volunteer orgs perhaps getting a commitment to respond in the next 5 days or 7 days would have been kinder and allowed for a more thoughtful and honest apology and RCA and next steps?
On to the next issues
Should a con be able to give someone banned from another con a speaking slot
Yes. I think they should strongly consider the history of the con and how often they ban people however, and proceed with more caution but I wouldn't say it should prevent someone from other events but it should act as an indicator to be thoughtful.
There could be cases where a person fucked up, owns it, and IMPROVES themselves, i feel we do need to be better about making room for redemption i our community and online. However, the accountability should be on the person to show, over and over for a long time that they did understand what they did, and they are working to improve. Redemption is not fast. not everyone earns or deserves to be trusted again. There is risk in giving people a second chance and i think it should be done slowly and thoughtfully as we have seen there are plenty of people out there who do NOT take the time to understand, learn from, apologize for, and grow away from their past mistakes. At the same time just because it could be abused it not a reason to say "never!" In this particular case i have seen none of the requested actions and in fact the talk was the opposite of those, as such I don't think this applies to this event, but event organizers i would not fault for giving a second chance to people (but even his abstract should have been a red flag in this case IMO).
Should sponsors be held accountable for events at conferences?
Not directly IMO - unless an RCA says otherwise the sponsors should be assumed to have little control after they sign their sponsor contract, however asking them for a statement is fair (and they could choose to just say they are disappointed etc) - warning this could mean if the leadership of an event changes, you have harmed that event from proceeding in the future as sponsors are hard to come by.
If on the other hand the sponsors are found to be supportive or influential on whatever the issue at debate is, asking for an apology and follow on action i think would be fair.
Event Leadership
If the leadership in an RCA is found to be knowledgeable or neglegent they should step down and help transition to new leadership.
unlike paid events however there is a chance everyone is wearing a lot of hats, they delegated and i do not think the buck should stop with them if it was a subset of bad actors on staff or volunteers, they should remove those staff or volunteers and indicate how they plan to better staff the next year so more attention can be given by leadership.
Note unless the locals volunteer and support this is a risk.
Should a parent org be responsible?
They should be given a chance to review the IR/RCA (or force the IR/RCA) and should then consider whether the outcomes and apology are enough (in this case people stepping down) or if they want to take additional steps (in this case they are also going to be a bit more hands on, but there is always the option to de-letter or dis-associate).
Resources
https://twitter.com/SecurityBSides/status/1538287528519733248
https://twitter.com/SecurityBSides/status/1539033029666033665
https://skytalks.info/a-public-statement-re-the-actions-of-bsides-cleveland-and-the-handling-of-the-chris-hadnagy-talk/#addendum-1
https://twitter.com/BSidesCleveland/status/1538225602846765058
https://twitter.com/BSidesCleveland/status/1538228905533923333
https://twitter.com/BSidesCleveland/status/1538951733711355904
Over the weekend there was an incident at BSides Cleveland
The event had a person who has been barred from another event as a speaker, but had them listed as "special guest speaker" and obfuscated who it was
Speakers, after the special guest speaker, reacted by pulling their talks (I support this)
Some attendees asked for accountability (I support this)
What I am disappointed by
What I don't support is the very rapid demand that the event immediately provide a full apology and root cause analysis (RCA), and/or remove all organizers, and the "parent" organization (which is a loose parent org, much like a fraternity or sorority office that can de-associate a chapter but doesn't have direct control to disband the thing itself just remove it's name) immediately make a statement and take action, and that sponsors immediately respond and take action.
Why?
first, yes the event should recognize they need to do IR and RCA, but true apologies need to apologize for something specific and detail how they will prevent future occurrences. by demanding and rushing the "outcome" people lack knowledge of exactly what did happen, who knew what when, and the opportunity for a thoughtful outcome.
these events are volunteers, overworked, and chaos - is this an excuse for what happened, no. it is saying you need to give chaotic groups a chance to figure out what happened? who knew? was it everyone? was it a few people?
Next, sponsors often do not know event specifics, asking them to respond immediately is unfair, i think asking them to respond and giving them time would be fair, also likely their money is already spent they aren't getting it back. ask them to please make a statement and give them time to look at what happened, and let them make it.
finally, by saying the speakers who pulled did the right thing you potentially are punishing or thinking poorly of the speakers who went before, or who were unaware why the special guest was controversial (not everyone keeps up with our missing stairs and bad actors in the community). We should thank those who did step down but don't say thats what speakers have to do.
so, do i think what happened was right? no do i think it needed a IR yes. IMO did it need an apology and actions, yes - and there was.
the organizer stepped down, they are seeking new organizers and the main group is going to help it recover if it wants to and new organizers step up.
but as an all volunteer community, people do need to step up.
I am not against accountability, but we are too fast to demand a solution and an outcome, IMO, we need to demand they (sponsor, speakers, event, orgs) agree to do RCA and then respond, and in a timely manner, but with all volunteer orgs perhaps getting a commitment to respond in the next 5 days or 7 days would have been kinder and allowed for a more thoughtful and honest apology and RCA and next steps?
On to the next issues
Should a con be able to give someone banned from another con a speaking slot
Yes. I think they should strongly consider the history of the con and how often they ban people however, and proceed with more caution but I wouldn't say it should prevent someone from other events but it should act as an indicator to be thoughtful.
There could be cases where a person fucked up, owns it, and IMPROVES themselves, i feel we do need to be better about making room for redemption i our community and online. However, the accountability should be on the person to show, over and over for a long time that they did understand what they did, and they are working to improve. Redemption is not fast. not everyone earns or deserves to be trusted again. There is risk in giving people a second chance and i think it should be done slowly and thoughtfully as we have seen there are plenty of people out there who do NOT take the time to understand, learn from, apologize for, and grow away from their past mistakes. At the same time just because it could be abused it not a reason to say "never!" In this particular case i have seen none of the requested actions and in fact the talk was the opposite of those, as such I don't think this applies to this event, but event organizers i would not fault for giving a second chance to people (but even his abstract should have been a red flag in this case IMO).
Should sponsors be held accountable for events at conferences?
Not directly IMO - unless an RCA says otherwise the sponsors should be assumed to have little control after they sign their sponsor contract, however asking them for a statement is fair (and they could choose to just say they are disappointed etc) - warning this could mean if the leadership of an event changes, you have harmed that event from proceeding in the future as sponsors are hard to come by.
If on the other hand the sponsors are found to be supportive or influential on whatever the issue at debate is, asking for an apology and follow on action i think would be fair.
Event Leadership
If the leadership in an RCA is found to be knowledgeable or neglegent they should step down and help transition to new leadership.
unlike paid events however there is a chance everyone is wearing a lot of hats, they delegated and i do not think the buck should stop with them if it was a subset of bad actors on staff or volunteers, they should remove those staff or volunteers and indicate how they plan to better staff the next year so more attention can be given by leadership.
Note unless the locals volunteer and support this is a risk.
Should a parent org be responsible?
They should be given a chance to review the IR/RCA (or force the IR/RCA) and should then consider whether the outcomes and apology are enough (in this case people stepping down) or if they want to take additional steps (in this case they are also going to be a bit more hands on, but there is always the option to de-letter or dis-associate).
Resources
https://twitter.com/SecurityBSides/status/1538287528519733248
https://twitter.com/SecurityBSides/status/1539033029666033665
https://skytalks.info/a-public-statement-re-the-actions-of-bsides-cleveland-and-the-handling-of-the-chris-hadnagy-talk/#addendum-1
https://twitter.com/BSidesCleveland/status/1538225602846765058
https://twitter.com/BSidesCleveland/status/1538228905533923333
https://twitter.com/BSidesCleveland/status/1538951733711355904
