[AusNOG] AusNOG 2.0

[Jacob Taylor]

I think this conversation has diverged from the actual issue into an
argument of semantics. Categorically, the event in question did not occur
at a sanctioned AusNOG event. However, as Nathan states, to suggest that in
itself is enough for us to wash our hands is pretty reductive.

I don't think anyone, including Narelle, has implied AusNOG (either
the organisation or the community at large) is at fault/liable/whatever
here. The overwhelming majority of delegates behaved appropriately and were
rightfully appalled by this behaviour.

The point of calling this out is not to suggest AusNOG is a wretched hive
of scum and misogyny, because it isn't. It exists to highlight that bad
behaviour can and does exist in our industry (and, indeed, across all
industries).

We as an industry can do better, and I know this as I am a member of the
LGBTQIA+ community. I can assuredly state I have never felt unwelcome
amongst my industry peers at AusNOG or elsewhere, but I have felt the sting
of subtle discrimination at past employers.

I want all networking professionals to feel welcome in the industry, at
AusNOG and elsewhere. The first step to achieving that is to craft our
community into a space where, should the worst occur, those on the
receiving end feel empowered to speak up and call it out.

This in turn will deprive potential perpetrators of silence as a shield,
and hence will impact their behaviour.

I think we're hurtling down the slippery slope of the OT thread though, so
I'll leave it there.

Cheers,
Jake


On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:34 PM Terry Manderson <terry at terrym.net> wrote:

> Noel,
>
> Where did I say "zero liability"? I didn't. Nor did I say AusNOG had any
> liability. That is not my call as an individual who is ALSO not a member of
> the AusNOG board nor a judge, nor a lawyer. Are you a judge who can assert
> liability?
>
> What I said was that the "issue" occurred at someplace other than an
> AusNOG event.
>
> This IS a situation that individuals and companies in the industry need to
> take a hard look at themselves.
>
> T.
>
>
> > On 12 Apr 2022, at 1:23 pm, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
> >
> > I might have trimmed too much of the already over quoting so my bad, I
> have zero interest in who was involved or what.
> >
> > the "Fact" was it appeared Terry was claiming ausnog have zero liability
> in it, that is what i was referring to asking for the precedent case  :)
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2022 13:13, Nathan Brookfield wrote:
> >
> >> It may well be 'fact' and it's not my place at this stage to elaborate
> to the remainder of the community but considering the 'Offender' and the
> 'Victim' in this particular case were both at --
> > Regards,
> > Noel Butler
> >
> > This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
> information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to
> copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate this
> message without the authors express written authority to do so.   If you
> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all
> copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality,
> copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the
> mistaken delivery of this message.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at ausnog.net
> > https://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at ausnog.net
> https://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20220412/fbf581cb/attachment.htm>