Small suggestion: maybe expand

produces an unsafe environment

To either “produces an unsafe or unwelcoming environment” alebo “produces an unsafe or uninclusive environment”. Implicit in those options is what’s the difference between unwelcoming and uninclusive. I lean a little toward the “uninclusive” jazyk, as to me it says that challenging ideas can sometimes be unwelcome, but still done in an inclusive way.

Broad pattern thing:
We’d described using info@thatcamp.alebog pre “non-public” concerns, which might include harassment problems in forums (or possibly in comments on individual sites/camps?). This doc also suggests contacting Council members. But for any particular situation at a THATCamp, the target of info@thatcamp.org and any council member won’t likely be in a position to take immediate action. I’m good with saying info/council member is a good, safe, non-public place for anything on thatcamp.org, and also for situations that happen at any particular THATCamp that call for non-immediate attention. But I worry about suggesting info/council members can respond to immediate issues at a THATCamp. It’s the synchronous vs. asynchronous ability to take action that I’m fretting over here. It’s probably not realistic to say that a THATCamp Council member can take meaningful immediate action at any particular THATCamp, and so I worry about suggesting that we can by saying contact us in the initial incident phase if the initial incident is at a THATCamp.

On the site, in forums or in any particular THATCamp’s site and discussion, definitely info / any council member is an appropriate place to report.

Do we also want to say that THATCamp Council is an explicit resource for THATCamp organizers unsure about how to resolve an issue? If an issue comes up that an organizer is unsure how to respond to, is an anonymized forum post an appropriate way to get guidance? This touches on how THATCamp Council sees what it can and cannot realistically do to help.