[dragonwriter]

> Why? She reported the microaggression to the relevant organizers through a public channel.

As I understand it, the particular use of a public channel (particularly, the use of a photograph in it) was itself a direct violation of the Code of Conduct of the conference, and an unnecessary escalation. The only arguably excuse for such public shaming, independently of whether or not it was a violation of the Code of Conduct, would be if the act were more something significantly more serious on its own than she described (though a public complaint about the organizers would be in line if the act, as described, was privately reported and the organizers failed to deal with it in such a way that that failure was itself a hostile.)

[esbwhat]

The part of the code of conduct you are referring to was added AFTER this whole thing happened. So you don't think it was a serious thing. I disagree. It's brushing off these things as "not serious" that is part of the problem.

[dragonwriter]

> The part of the code of conduct you are referring to was added AFTER this whole thing happened.

That's not what several of the accounts I've seen has said, but as I noted in my post I don't consider that particularly important in the final analysis one way or the other.

> So you don't think it was a serious thing.

I didn't say that; quite the opposite, I said that there was a legitimate grounds to expect that conference organizers would treat an appropriate, private report seriously and that it would be legitimately to publicly complain if they failed to do so.

Theft of even a small value is serious. Murder is serious. Most people who agree with both these propositions would still readily agree that the appropriate response to the former and that to the latter are not the same.