Section 2 Rules for disclosure in particular situations

Are there any situations where disclosure to the SIG and its leaders would be made based on a complaint or investigation? Rather than just following an investigation and sanctions?

This is addressed in item 6 here.

Is all of that work done invisibly? Or is the vetting to be done in the future?

Each conference/SIG is supposed to have a process in place for ensuring that the vetting takes place. It is my understanding that there are a few conferences/SIGs that might not have such processes in place yet.

I had the same question… it would seem that each individual should have to consent to their name being shared. This raises another question though… if a complaint names a harmed individual, is that harmed individual told of the complaint by right, or only if the subsequent investigation determines it necessary?

It can be the case that there are multiple harmed individuals (e.g. a racist/sexist statement during a coffee break at a conference is heard by multiple people). Those people may not all be identified through the course of an investigation. In practice, harmed individuals are contacted if their contact information can be determined.

I would suggest removing the clause. The intent of the policy rewrite is to allow for greater disclosure of information for “Procedural Equity” and “Harm Prevention”. Proposed Section 2.6 allows for disclosure to leaders of ACM communities as well as the respondent’s employer or supervisor. If we can’t identify what other bodies/individuals may need to be informed when creating the policy, then we shouldn’t allow disclosure. I would also think legal counsel would have strong opinions on this clause re the identified increased defamation risk and this allowing deviation from the policy. If this clause is left in, then the approval for deviations should include individuals with fiduciary responsibilities in ACM both at the volunteer and staff level.

It’s not clear to see that all witnesses are created equal and therefore automatically entitled to learn about the outcome of the investigation. For example, witnesses may be called upon to testify on some particular evidence, but they may not be aware of the underlying complaint or have a need to know about it.

“It’s not clear to see” :arrow_right: “It’s not clear to me”

Thanks for this observation.