This is precisely why we are having a consensus vote on this matter next week.<div>It was decided last night that to allow Patrick continued access to the space posed an immediate and real threat. This is why we do-ocratically banned him. We will actually vote on the act next week, but basically, he had to go, and he had to go right now for the safety of the membership.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, for the record, there were probably around 30 people at the meeting last night, and all agreed on this.</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Sean Cusack <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sean.p.cusack@gmail.com">sean.p.cusack@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I want to point out one little thing here before we that is sort of getting lost in the cross fire:<br><br>I don't know all the details surrounding what Mr. P has done, and agree that it could be completely correct to ban him from the space based on the info. However, we have set up a situation here that is pretty alarming. A small group of people do-ocratically elected themselves judge and jury of Mr. P. Let's think about this:<br>
<br>Step 1: A group of people want to ban someone from the space and say they have some evidence that will be presented. For those not in the know, this could or could not be reasonable based on the evidence, right?<br>Step 2: Said person to be banned enters the space, and *is* kicked out by a subset of people (presumably some that were on the initial e-mail). Note...no real consensus has taken place, and no evidence has been presented to anyone outside of a small group of people.<br>
Step 3: Patrick agrees to leave<br>Step 4: An e-mail gets sent to the list saying "this was bad, but trust us...it was what needed to happen".<br><br>Reading it in those steps, does this not sound like some gitmo style bullshit? So, if the consensus process decides that Patrick shouldn't be banned, then what? Do you really think he'll ever come back into the space given how he was treated?<br>
<br>Again, I'm not denying the fact that maybe P's actions warrant him getting booted. I don't have a vagina - so I wasn't hit on. I don't know the details. I'm just saying that having a small group of people running around making decisions that are this severe is mafia-esque. Although I don't really think we can do anything at this point to salvage the situation (regardless of what happens during the consensus process), I sincerely hope that god-forbid if this situation presents itself again, people don't resort to vigilante justice (btw, last I heard, we were going to have an intervention!), and bring it up in a more formal sense before just acting on what a subset of people thought was correct at the time. <br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>Sean</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Albert Sweigart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
I would also like note that this was discuss for a couple hours last<br>
night at the weekly meeting. Lots of people from all over the spectrum<br>
of "what Noisebridge ought to be" were there, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON<br>
supported barring Patrick from coming back to the space.<br>
<br>
In Patrick-style bullet points:<br>
<br>
* This isn't about his personality quirks or obnoxious mailing list<br>
posts, it's about him sexually harassing people.<br>
* He's harassed multiple people.<br>
* He refuses to talk with others about it, change his behavior, or<br>
even admit that he's done anything wrong or apologize.<br>
* It's to the point where multiple women feel uncomfortable enough<br>
that they would avoid Noisebridge if Patrick could still come.<br>
* This is exactly the situation that calls for banning from ever<br>
physically entering the space again.<br>
<br>
Also, he's stolen our printer. He clearly said he donated it (<br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/020804.html" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/020804.html</a><br>
) but took it back this morning when he was told he couldn't come back<br>
into the space.<br>
<br>
-Al<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
<br>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM, rachel lyra hospodar<br>
<<a href="mailto:rachel@mediumreality.com" target="_blank">rachel@mediumreality.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> hooray! well-put, VonGuard. I will chime in to say that while people<br>
> must trust that our doocratic decision was made in good faith, we did<br>
> not yet consense on banning patrick because of how our consensus process<br>
> works - everyone will have a chance to view the evidence and decide for<br>
> themselves.<br>
><br>
> There is evidence. This is not a witch hunt.<br>
><br>
> We are viscerally and hugely concerned for the safety and well-being of<br>
> the vast majority of our users, and feel that this negative person's<br>
> behavior has passed beyond something that we can influence and/or help<br>
> to improve.<br>
><br>
> Noisebridge exists to provide a safe space to hack, not as a place to<br>
> help those who behave reprehensibly to improve themselves. We aren't<br>
> banning him from humanity, just our workshop.<br>
><br>
> R.<br>
><br>
> On 2/23/2011 9:04 AM, VonGuard wrote:<br>
>> So, I just wanted to nip this in the bud: We are all very appreciative of<br>
>> advice from newcomers, but if you are watching all this Patrick Keys drama<br>
>> from the outside, and you think to yourself "Hey, that's some very<br>
>> unexcellent behavior towards Patrick!" I ask you to stop and think for a<br>
>> moment.<br>
>><br>
>> Noisebridge is a super accepting space. It was only after tremendous<br>
>> discussion, debate, and evidence gathering that we decided to ban him. Until<br>
>> the next official meeting, most of you are just going to have to trust that<br>
>> we have made the best decision for Noisebridge here. That is why so many<br>
>> names were appended to the bottom of that email. This was to say "We are<br>
>> signing to say this is legitimate, and that this action needs to be taken."<br>
>><br>
>> This was actually never about personality, or even about the mailing list.<br>
>> This was about Patrick making women at Noisebridge feel unsafe. This was not<br>
>> done based on any form of speculation or jumping to conclusions. This was<br>
>> done after a careful, considered process where it was decided that not<br>
>> banning Patrick was the same thing as banning a number of women who would no<br>
>> longer come to Noisebridge because of his presence and his unwanted<br>
>> attentions, and his stalking behavior.<br>
>><br>
>> Noisebridge has plenty of socially awkward geeks. We all know that if yer a<br>
>> chick at Noisebridge, someone might stare at your boobs. Awkward though this<br>
>> is, it's actually OK. Sure, it's not the most polite thing to do, but it's<br>
>> harmless. Women and men at Noisebridge are still perfectly free to behave<br>
>> like women and men. This is very far from what is taking place here.<br>
>> Patrick's behavior was well over the line of acceptable.<br>
>><br>
>> This was not a witch hunt. This is not a precedent for banning annoying or<br>
>> creepy people. This was about physical safety in and outside of the space<br>
>> for ladies with whom Patrick had crossed the line, and continued to cross<br>
>> the line after being told to stop.<br>
>><br>
>> Finally, I will say that the "intervention, mediated talking" route had<br>
>> already been tried with Patrick. If you are interested in reading more about<br>
>> Patrick's complete inability and unwillingness to listen to ANYONE about<br>
>> ANYTHING, there are about 4 months worth of email backlogs in our archives<br>
>> documenting his complete inability to listen and understand people's<br>
>> problems with him. It's a pattern with him.<br>
>><br>
>> This extended to also being unable to accept the word "no!" from women. And<br>
>> that makes me want to do something truly terrible to him. But instead of<br>
>> hurting him or assaulting him online or offline, we all decided to solve<br>
>> this within Noisebridge's processes. Believe me, there are others here who<br>
>> would have done far worse to him given the chance. The man is a menace, and<br>
>> does not even treat women like people. They are sexual objects to him, ones<br>
>> that owe him sexual attentions, in his eyes.<br>
>><br>
>> This is not someone we will ever be allowing back. He is pure fucking scum,<br>
>> and he is absolutely the antithesis of everything Noiserbridge stands for.<br>
>><br>
>> Let it be known: you cannot sexually harass or endanger ANYONE at<br>
>> Noisebridge. You will be banned if you do so and do not correct the behavior<br>
>> when you are told to stop. This is the precedent we're setting. And I think<br>
>> it is a very good one. Everyone should be safe at Noisebridge. And no one<br>
>> should feel unsafe outside of Noisebridge because a person associated with<br>
>> the space is following/harassing them.<br>
>><br>
>> If you are still not convinced, come to the meeting next week. I agree, this<br>
>> is all quite ugly, but at the end of the day, this is 100% Patrick's own<br>
>> fault. Noisebridge remains %99.999 inclusive. But stalkers will NEVER be<br>
>> welcome.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Rikke Rasmussen <<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rikke.c.rasmussen@gmail.com" target="_blank">rikke.c.rasmussen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> I know that my being very new at Noisebridge may cause some of you to find<br>
>>> it inappropriate for me to interfere in this matter, but I hope you'll bear<br>
>>> with me and hear me out. I've met Patrick multiple times through<br>
>>> Tastebridge, and know him only as polite, if perhaps a little formal, even<br>
>>> stiff, at times. However, I have never found his behavior untoward in any<br>
>>> way. I will of course read the material available tomorrow, but given the<br>
>>> very rapid development of the situation, I feel like I should add a comment<br>
>>> in his defense immediately - I've witnessed a lynching before and have no<br>
>>> desire to see another.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Exclusion is the worst punishment Noisebridge has because of the no<br>
>>> policies-policy, our equivalent of capital punishment, and I do not feel<br>
>>> that the crime merits this measure. It is as big a deal as the offended<br>
>>> party chooses to make of it, but since this has only been brought out in<br>
>>> public by a flamewar, and not by the person herself, I can't help but feel<br>
>>> that Frantisek may have a point about attempting mediated dialogue first.<br>
>>> More than anything, though, I would like to hear from the female in question<br>
>>> - if you are following this discussion, I would like to know whether you<br>
>>> feel that this is reasonable?<br>
>>><br>
>>> I hope it's clear that I'm trying to pour water, not gasoline, on the fire<br>
>>> here.<br>
>>><br>
>>> /Rikke<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>