<p>I<br>
On Sep 19, 2011 9:10 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> If someone has been this big of a problem, I would prefer if the model we use to deal with them defaulted towards 'return of problem person allowed only after a meeting where they are discussed and have an advocate present' instead of a default setting where time erases all wounds.<br>
></p>
<p>I may have misunderstood, but Isn't that what I just proposed? Or at least as close a fix as I can reach given that there's a one month ban, and people think jay should have the right to advocate for himself.<br>
</p>
<p>> If someone is accused of making women socially uncomfortable we go all ballistic on them, but if they steal our shit they get a simple time out? This kind of bullshit behavior is just as alarming to me as Harassing the Womenfolk. I want us to treat it as a Big Deal, and I don't feel safe with this person returning to the space until the meeting where we discuss the fallout from his actions AND HE MIGHT GET BANNED instead of allowed back in.<br>
></p>
<p>I agree, and would not have supported the one month suspension, but this was proposed and quickly negotiated by a bunch of people, which I believe did not include Rubin. </p>
<p>Two other alternatives: bringing the ban forward so that Ray can attend earlier, making Leif his advocate.</p>
<p>> We are not toddlers, and timeouts are good for defusing tense feelings, not solving real problems.<br>
><br>
> I will be note taking october 11th, and that date works great for me. Jake?<br>
><br>
> I do NOT think jay should return before the meeting about him, regardless of when we have it.</p>
<p>Yeah I *think* everyone is agreed on that.</p>
<p>D.</p>
<p>><br>
> <a href="http://mediumreality.com">mediumreality.com</a><br>
><br>
> On Sep 19, 2011 7:43 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com">danny@spesh.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> >> yes I can see why you wouldn't want to be the only one propping up Jay,<br>
> >> because I will ask the notetaker to record exactly who is objecting to<br>
> >> banning Jay, and those people will be asked later why they thought it was<br>
> >> necessary, after he returns for a second helping and takes the rest of the<br>
> >> microscopes.<br>
> >><br>
> > <br>
> > In the interest of pointing out the potential compromise positions, I'd say<br>
> > that if this one fails, it's entire possible to propose a second banz0ring<br>
> > session on October 11th.<br>
> > <br>
> > That would give Jay an opportunity period from the 6th-11th to come in and<br>
> > steal all the microscopes, of course.<br>
> > <br>
> > So if that period of what I will call "temporary microscopy saturnalia"<br>
> > isn't acceptable, someone can also move to extend Jay's ban (or more<br>
> > technically, insert an involuntary period of bannination between Jay's<br>
> > voluntary one, with goes out of date on the 6th to the 11th) to cope with<br>
> > this contingency.<br>
> > <br>
> > These two proposals would I think comply with all members' current concerns<br>
> > that I am aware of, and perhaps give time to reconcile the hundred or so<br>
> > more that will surely instantly arise to take their place.<br>
> > <br>
> > Blocking either proposal would of course be an indication of sour grapes and<br>
> > microscope-hating anarchy (and not the good kind of anarchy, the baad baad<br>
> > kind) and people doing so should be put on a list for all to see.<br>
> > <br>
> > I'm not going to be here for any of this stuff, being in an *actual* court<br>
> > of law that week, but I'll put it in as a suggestion in tomorrow's notes<br>
> > anyway.[1]<br>
> > <br>
> > I also, as I mentioned to a few people, I emailed Jay telling him that<br>
> > there's a proposal to ban him, and advising him it's probably sensible for<br>
> > him to stay the hell away from our amazing whirling dervish of an<br>
> > organization for all time.<br>
> > <br>
> > Al, would you like me to suggest he check out Ace Monster Toys? [2]<br>
> > <br>
> > Hail Eris!<br>
> > <br>
> > d.<br>
> > [1] Has anyone actually volunteered to be the note-taker at tomorrow's<br>
> > meeting yet? Oh, noooooooo.<br>
> > [2] I kid! I was going to send him down to Biocurious.<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Rubin Abdi wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> >> Kelly wrote, On 2011-09-18 23:28:<br>
> >>> Is there<br>
> >>> someone who will be at the meeting next week to block / defer the ban for<br>
> >>> future consideration?<br>
> >><br>
> >> I know of others out there who feel the same, I would appreciate it I<br>
> >> wasn't the only (vocal) one at this next meeting.<br>
> >><br>
> >> --<br>
> >> Rubin<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net">rubin@starset.net</a><br>
> >><br>
> >><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">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
</p>