<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(136, 136, 136); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(32, 32, 32); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><div>
<span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(32, 32, 32); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; ">From the original Banisfesto:</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(32, 32, 32); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><br>
</span></div>[...]<i>Patrick, the undersigned have agreed doocratically that you are no<br>longer welcome at Noisebridge. Do not return. If you have possessions<br>in the space you may contact Jason Dusek who will collect them and bring<br>
them down to you at the sidewalk. Any of us will, if we see you in the<br>space, ask you to leave and escort you out.<br><br><br>Everyone else, we are putting up an official consensus item for banning<br>Patrick from the space.</i>[...]</span><div>
<font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; "><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; ">@Rubin - Al has asserted that the decision is made, and permanent. There is nothing in the original text to indicate otherwise. Patrick has been informed that he is no longer welcome, and asked not to return. No-one is saying that they will stop escorting him out if the consesus overthrows the ban on Tuesday.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; "><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; ">@Quirk - I'm a good-looking girl geek. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with unwelcome sexual advances, and I realize that such cases require special concerns for the victims. However, I cannot help but feel that a call for due process - or even for a discussion of what constitutes due process at Noisebridge - is not out of place here, exactly because this is very serious.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; "><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; ">@Adrian - There is a 50 email long parallel thread discussing your concerns, as started by myself this morning. You are not alone, but you are in the minority. Welcome.</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; "><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; ">@Patrick - </span></font><span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(32, 32, 32); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; ">If you feel like you're being unrightly accused, why are you trying to keep the email logs in question out of public view? Do your words not hold up to public scrutiny?</span><span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(32, 32, 32); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; "> I must admit, I do feel like a bit of an idiot for defending you on principle here. It is entirely beside the point whether you believe you have done anything wrong or not in this context - the simple fact is, you have clearly overstepped somebody else's boundaries, been informed of this, and refused to apologize. That really is unacceptable. Apart from that, Azi put it about as succintly as could be: you really blew it, dude. Seriously, go talk to someone, preferably a professional.</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(32, 32, 32); font-family: 'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif; "><br></span></div><font color="#888888"><div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; "><br>
</span></font></div><div><font color="#202020" face="'Droid Sans', arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse; ">/Rikke</span></font></div></font></span><font color="#888888"></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Elizabeth Sarah Quirk Goodman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:elizabethsqg@gmail.com">elizabethsqg@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 hope that people who come to the meeting or post on this thread will first take a little time to educate themselves on the effects of sexual harassment and physical threats, and the pros and cons of various approaches to dealing with them.<br>
<br>To everyone who is making a theoretical point about the Noisebridge
process, as it is already pretty much after the fact, perhaps you would
like to resume such a discussion after this particular issue is
resolved. I personally think we *should* have that discussion, but it is not really about Patrick and would be better done at the meeting in person, or afterwards on the list.<br><br>
In cases of sexual harassment, transparency and delay do not serve
merely to protect the alleged harasser; they are also cruel to the
victims (you can look this up). I wasn't at the meeting nor do I have all relevant
information, but I believe you should know better than to put the burden
of proof continually on the victims of harassment, who will only feel
more anxious and unsafe the more they think people aren't willing to
defend them. I had wondered about what would happen in this sort of situation and I am gratified to see that the community did
not fail to respond to the needs of its members. It is seriously impressive that there is care being taken regarding privacy as well.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Quirk<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/2/24 Adrian Bankhead <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:invisibleman_24@yahoo.com" target="_blank">invisibleman_24@yahoo.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">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><br>
----- Original Message ----<br>
From: Rubin Abdi <<a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a>><br>
To: Adrian Bankhead <<a href="mailto:invisibleman_24@yahoo.com" target="_blank">invisibleman_24@yahoo.com</a>><br>
Cc: Rachel McConnell <<a href="mailto:rachel@xtreme.com" target="_blank">rachel@xtreme.com</a>>; Noisebridge Discuss<br>
<<a href="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a><br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<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>
<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>