Thanks for replying, Phil. As somebody who has been through the wringer, I'm especially interested in your opinions here.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
- Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal charges against a harasser.
This has never happened, nor, to my knowledge, come close to happening.
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order.See above.
Agreed, but I'm wondering if something like this would shift the balance. And I'm at least as interested in the mental effect of the fund's very existence, both on editors and potential harassers.
[...]We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. [...]
The point here being that we have a lot to lose by making a fund such as this. We can be a somewhat... doggedly insular group. Any such fund or body needs clear measures in place to make sure that it does not become a tool for smacking down people who are legitimately wronged and are simply choosing ineffectual or overly hostile ways of airing their grievances.
I agree completely. That's the biggest risk, and would love to see such measures proposed. I have zero experience in this area, but I'm sure somebody here does.
* ArbCom (sorry, guys) * The WMF legal counsel * JimboCOI problems crop up rapidly here.
I don't see those COIs as a huge issue. I figure that the fund will be modest in size until there is an actual incident, and contributions from there will depend a great deal on how the incident is handled.
Of course, there's still a risk and I'd welcome a better suggestion. Come to think of it, you might be a perfect person for it.
William