<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>So, in the name of "do-ocracy", we have the ability to ban people even before the group has reached consensus. And because there is no due process, the banned person can't defend themselves. Do I understand this correctly?<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Rubin Abdi <rubin@starset.net>; noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, 23 February, 2011 23:22:32<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge<BR></FONT><BR>Patrick doesn't have any rights to defend himself; because no one at noisebridge has the right to defend themselves from consensus.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Our charter doesn't define a criminal system, it merely defines a consensus process.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If he's not a member, he doesn't even have the right to speak at a meeting.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now, I don't _like_ he consensus process, but that's the one we've got; and in that process ... he's SOL.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Adrian Bankhead <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:invisibleman_24@yahoo.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:invisibleman_24@yahoo.com">invisibleman_24@yahoo.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=gmail_quote>Rubin,<BR><BR>Are you just "fairly certain" or can you (or anyone) provide absolute<BR>assurance that Patrick will have the ability to respond formally to the charges<BR>that have been made against him before he is banned? Or is that not how things<BR>work around here? Has Patrick been informed of his right to defend himself,<BR>and has he been formally invited to answer these *very* serious allegations? <BR>Because until I raised the question, I had not seen any discussion at all of<BR>Patrick's rights with regards to being banned. I had assumed that he had been<BR>banned from your first "ban" email, and that his ban would simply be ratified<BR>after-the-fact in group discussion. ("Trust us") Apparently I went through like<BR>a hundred emails and I've mistaken (and
horrified) the whole time. If I am,<BR>then Patrick might be as well.<BR><BR>I'm sorry for pressing the issue - but I'd like to feel like I'm joining a co-op<BR>rather than a lynch-mob.<BR><BR>Also, do you really think that seeking clarification about process is "pissing<BR>all over the email list"? Are you telling me that my only option to trust you? <BR>Is this how things work at Noisebridge?<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>----- Original Message ----<BR>From: Rubin Abdi <<A href="mailto:rubin@starset.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:rubin@starset.net">rubin@starset.net</A>><BR>To: Adrian Bankhead <<A href="mailto:invisibleman_24@yahoo.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:invisibleman_24@yahoo.com">invisibleman_24@yahoo.com</A>><BR>Cc: Rachel McConnell <<A href="mailto:rachel@xtreme.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:rachel@xtreme.com">rachel@xtreme.com</A>>; Noisebridge Discuss<BR><<A href="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</A>><BR>Sent: Wed, 23 February, 2011 20:20:15<BR>Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge<BR><BR>Adrian Bankhead wrote, On 20110223 194552:<BR>> In addition to the fact a definitive action was taken
before people had time to<BR>><BR>> consense, the thing that I'm most disturbed about is that Patrick was never<BR>> given the opportunity to speak in his own defense to the group, or to reply<BR>> formally to accusations ("evidence"). Even if he is a total scumbag, he<BR>> still deserves the opportunity to defend himself prior to banning. And<BR>> Noisebridge guard jealously its collective autonomy, which is strengthened when<BR>><BR>> it protects the rights of the accused and insists on hearing arguments from all<BR>><BR>> sides before making decisions.<BR><BR>No decision has been made. I'm fairly sure he's welcome to defend<BR>himself here, in person to anyone and at the next Tuesday meeting.<BR><BR>The two things that were established at the meeting were...<BR><BR>* A bunch of people would like it if Patrick wasn't allowed in the space<BR>due to reasons related to people feeling unsafe around him, and
will<BR>make this known to him in person if he does show up in the space,<BR>additionally will ask him to leave. I'm sure some will be more graceful<BR>then others. A list of these people is attached to the first message of<BR>this thread. How each of these people actually do the ask will differ<BR>from person to person. I'm one of those people.<BR><BR>* A consensus item to be brought up at the next meeting to formally ban<BR>Patrick from the space. This is giving everyone, including Patrick, a<BR>week to figure things out. This discussion is part of that figuring<BR>things out.<BR><BR>Folks can bitch and moan about how wrong this is. That's great. None of<BR>you are Patrick. If I was in his shoes, and all that was said about me<BR>was false, I would have either said something by now or decided that<BR>this community isn't worth my time and moved on.<BR><BR>All in all, unless Patrick has a good bullet pointed response to all<BR>that is against him and
resolves our issues, even if we don't reach<BR>consensus next week (we wont, taking bets now), I think the general tone<BR>has been established that a bunch of really awesome people would like<BR>him to not be a dick and/or never to return to Noisebridge again and<BR>that he's gotten part or all of that message.<BR><BR>If you think differently, stop bitching about it on the list and<BR>actually seek us out and talk to us directly about why we feel this is a<BR>positive course of action tot take for the space. Pissing all over the<BR>mailing list without actually talking with those involves doesn't really<BR>help folks.<BR><BR>--<BR>Rubin Abdi<BR><A href="mailto:rubin@starset.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:rubin@starset.net">rubin@starset.net</A><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>_______________________________________________<BR>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</A><BR><A href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" rel=nofollow target=_blank>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Crutcher Dunnavant <<A href="mailto:crutcher@gmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:crutcher@gmail.com">crutcher@gmail.com</A>><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>