[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned
asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 02:41:03 UTC 2011
I moderated last night's meeting. No one mentioned that the agreement
to ban Patrick immediately was temporary until consensus was taken.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss