You are apparently unfamiliar with the phenomenon - which I have already mentioned in this thread - of convention staff pretending that incidents did not happen when there is not clear and public documentation. As to those phone numbers: There's no such thing as an office number?
If PyCon staff were notified and did nothing, then I would say that putting everything in public, so people could judge both the men making the comments and PyCon staff's lack of action, would be the next step to take. I think that doing so would actually be far more effective than preemptively going to the public option, because that also puts PyCon in a situation where it's known that they ignored a complaint, and encourages them to make sure it doesn't happen again. Now, even though they did this action, there's still the threat that the next one that's not publicly announced will go unanswered.
Because we can't move toward social justice if we can't talk about it publicly. Or are you saying that there is no issue with sexism in the tech industry? I found some of the ways she patted herself on the back distasteful, but talking about the incident at all? That's perfectly reasonable and, frankly, expected.
Agreed, but what part of talking about the incident requires putting the picture of the people in question and listing their company in the public space? It would be just as effective for her to tell the story without pictures and saying that they were from one of the companies sponsoring PyCon without naming it.
Important note you don't seem to be getting: She did not want anyone fired. Or, in fact, any action taken beyond what the PyCon staff did. She has publicly expressed her regret that this is what happened. So no, going to Playhaven's HR department wasn't even in the cards.
Judging from her comments and her complete lack of acknowledging that she may have done anything wrong by putting it in the public, I'm not so sure her regret is genuine, honestly.
Which is why only one of the two individuals she put in the spotlight and did not distinguish between was fired, right?
Answered already, one was telling the joke, the other was listening to it. Are you honestly going to tell me that someone should be fired because someone else told them a bad joke?
Like the #pycon tag, which was pretty certain to be monitored by staff? As to the point of it: Public documentation makes it so this can't jsut be swept under the rug. This is valuable.
A tweet directed at PyCon would have @PyCon, not #PyCon. They would be actively monitoring tweets to them, not just tweets about them. If it were one tweet I could see it being a typo or something, but she made three tweets. (And saying "she didn't know the difference" isn't going to work for someone that has over 10k followers.)
That's... basically what she did. "That's not cool" works (when it works, which is nowhere near as common as it should be - see every instance of a woman speaking out against sexism on the internet ever) precisely because it puts the spotlight on the perpetrators and shames them. Shame is a valid tool to rein in unacceptable behaviour on a social/informal level; it's used all the damn time for all sorts of things. Why is it magically transmuted to inappropriate behaviour when it's a woman talking about sexist behaviour?
Uh, no, that's not what she did. She went straight to staff (and later, her public blog) without saying anything to the guys. The only hint she gave them that something was amiss was that she took their picture. If she did that and they kept making jokes, I'd agree that something else needed to be done.
And there's a world of difference between publicly shaming them by calling them out in person, where only people in earshot could hear, and publicly shaming them online, where anyone with an internet connection can see it.