[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Christie Dudley longobord at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 02:35:42 UTC 2011

I want to chime in here since it appears there's something that you, Rikke,
and probably a lot of other people missed...

What you propose to happen is what did happen. The ban currently in effect
is temporary until a formal consensus can be reached. This was stated in the
ban that folks signed and I think Alex was a little irritated for having to
repeat. I repeat it again... The person in question is not permanently
banned until a proper consensus can be reached.

For all you new people, consensus at Noisebridge *always* takes at least 2
weeks. This is true with any important decision, and it does not differ
here. The first week the issue is raised as to whether the decision should
be made, arguments are presented and facts are discussed. The intervening
week allows people who weren't there to participate in the discussions, let
their opinions be known and have any outstanding issues discussed. The
following week, the consensus decision is made. It is very important to
maintaining integrity of the process that you need not be there to
participate in a consensus decision. There are many folks who are more than
willing to represent views other than their own in such meetings, allowing
for everyone's voice to be heard.

I believe Jason is gathering the information so that we can all formulate
informed decisions. I hope this happens sooner rather than later so everyone
can move on.

So... what are you concerned about again Rikke?

"The thing that is really hard, and really amazing, is giving up on being
perfect and beginning the work of becoming yourself."
--Anna Quindlen

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Rikke Rasmussen <
rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is painfully clear that I have failed in my stated mission to pour water
> rather than gasoline on this fire. I'm uncertain of whether or not it serves
> any purpose at this point to attempt a clarification of my standing in this
> matter, but here goes:
> First, I would like to make it clear that my initial reaction early this
> morning was based on my perception of events at the time (the sequence is
> pretty well documented by Christina on
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Y_U_BAN_PATRICK). As a female and
> (although new) very regular visitor at Noisebridge, I felt obliged to point
> out that my own experience of Patrick does not well match the "creep",
> "scum" and "stalker" who has been portrayed on this list, and that apart
> from two obviously misogynist comments and accusations of a case of
> harassment made in the course of a public flamewar, I had seen no evidence
> to back up the action being taken.
> Secondly, I find that reading the excerpt from the discussion and flamewar
> leading up to the Ban-ifesto again only re-affirms my conviction that I was
> right to cast doubt on the way this situation has been handled, although my
> paranoid horrorvisions of a raging lynch mob at Noisebridge have been laid
> to rest (sorry, Al, didn't mean to offend). I'm also much relieved to hear
> that some form of mediated dialogue has already been attempted. However,
> like Sean, I cannot help but feel that the discussion at next week's meeting
> will necessarily be *post facto* - the hole in the ceiling is there, and
> it is too late to build consense on whether or not it should have been made
> in the first place. Patrick is now effectively, if not officially, banned
> from Noisebridge, likely for good.
> That being said, I do not - repeat, *not*! - claim that the decision to
> ban Patrick is wrong. In fact, given the reported overwhelming agreement at
> yesterday's meeting, I will probably agree with it once I've had chance to
> peruse the evidence for myself. The fact that Patrick himself obviously
> feels that his conduct will not live up to public scrutiny only strengthens
> my belief in
> the wisdom of my fellow Noisebridgers on this. Nonetheless, I do very much
> question the way the sentence has been executed, though. As Rachel said,
> this is not about Patrick, but about what we can learn about our own 'legal'
> procedures for later reference, so I would like to suggest that if similar
> events occur in the future, the person in question be temporarily suspended
> (and announced as such) while everyone has a chance to formed a
> substantiated opinion and participate in the consensus process. The
> accompanying email might be entitled 'Urgent discussion: Should [insert name
> here] be banned from Noisebridge?' instead, leaving open the option that the
> accused might be innocent until found guilty by *two* consecutive
> meetings, thus including in the consensus process those unable (not
> unwilling!) to attend on any given night.
> Last, but not least: VonGuard, it is very difficult for me to keep a level
> tone with you, so forgive me if I come across as a little sharp. I find you
> extremely rude and condescending, and would like to make it absolutely clear
> that I do not appreciate being told to trust you, your friends, the
> membership, Santa Claus or anyone else for any of the following reasons:
> - other people agree with you (lots of people can be wrong)
> - you know what's best for me (and everyone else)
> - you had no other choice (or no other sound argument)
> - you have information that I don't (but you won't share)
> - you've told me to more than once
> The fact that you take offence that I would cast doubt on the legitimacy of
> the course of do-ocratic action here only makes me all the more convinced
> that I'm right to do so. Also, the description on public record of a fellow
> human being as completely broken begs professional qualification: please
> provide.
> I am on my way to Noisebridge, and will spend the evening familiarizing
> myself with whatever material is available. Look forward to continuing the
> constructive debate of how to handle this sort of thing in the future.
> /Rikke
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Rikke Rasmussen <
> rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know that my being very new at Noisebridge may cause some of you to find
>> it inappropriate for me to interfere in this matter, but I hope you'll bear
>> with me and hear me out. I've met Patrick multiple times through
>> Tastebridge, and know him only as polite, if perhaps a little  formal, even
>> stiff, at times. However, I have never found his behavior untoward in any
>> way. I will of course read the material available tomorrow, but given the
>> very rapid development of the situation, I feel like I should add a comment
>> in his defense immediately - I've witnessed a lynching before and have no
>> desire to see another.
>> Exclusion is the worst punishment  Noisebridge has because of the no
>> policies-policy, our equivalent of capital punishment, and I do not feel
>> that the crime merits this measure. It is as big a deal as the offended
>> party chooses to make of it, but since this has only been brought out in
>> public by a flamewar, and not by the person herself, I can't help but feel
>> that Frantisek may have a point about attempting mediated dialogue first.
>> More than anything, though, I would like to hear from the female in question
>> - if you are following this discussion, I would like to know whether you
>> feel that this is reasonable?
>> I hope it's clear that I'm trying to pour water, not gasoline, on the fire
>> here.
>> /Rikke
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110223/f43330d3/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list