[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge-discuss Digest, Vol 40, Issue 24
noisebridge at splattercast.com
Thu Feb 24 04:17:16 UTC 2011
There is nothing wrong with defending the principles themselves... so phrases like "seriously regret" are sort of our of place, regardless of what happened.
No different than if a mob were to attack someone who committed a crime, and due process was denied. There are correct and incorrect ways of handling things.
also, noisebridge, the repeated demands that noisebridge keep a laser printer that was at one point donated by patrick.. are awfully petty. puh leeeze. that looks wrong, for sure. as do appearances of a lynch mob... backed by lines like "trust us" and "soon you will see"
sit tight for how long?
what defines "scum" and what if some of us think other people are "scum". That's not a very precise definition or really, actionable. It's prejudicial language. It's not proper. If you had a hand in the decision, then i really think you should withdraw from further involvement in the matter as biases are showing all over the place.
i'm not defending or condemning what patrick allegedly did since i didn't see any of it and have not been offered any hard evidence. however, the process here really stinks, and the personal biases aren't particularly delightful either
and get off the printer issue already. i've run or helped run quite a number of nonprofits much larger than noisebridge. if a donor were unhappy with us, we'd certainly accommodate them. it happens, sometimes. hell, universities have refunded major donations on occasion. surely noisebridge can step up and act a little bit grown-up in that matter rather than clawing for that printer... that's just tasteless, really, no matter what happened. you kick a donor out of your treehouse, expect the donations to stop and maybe go with him. why the surprise? and if you really didn't like the guy, why accept the donation in the first place?
On Feb 23, 2011, at 12:00 PM, noisebridge-discuss-request at lists.noisebridge.net wrote:
> One more note on this: I would highly advise that anyone looking at this and saying "Wow, this looks wrong," just sit tight.
> You're not gonna be very happy with your defense of Patrick or condemnation of our actions when the evidence is presented.
> We made this decision for a reason. Noisebridge DOES need a process for eliminating those who are a danger to other members. This process is evolving. There is certainly room for refining the process.
> But, again, if you think this looks wrong, come to the meeting next week, don't continue this thread. I know it sucks saying "Trust us," but Noisebridge is entirely based on trust already. Please trust that we're doing the right thing, here.
> In 2 years, we've never had to do this, even when guys in hospital gowns were in the space, ranting incomprehensibly. I assure you, there ware very good cause here, and it is only to protect the privacy of the women Patrick harassed that we do not make this info available on a publicly archived list.
> Allow me to restate in no uncertain terms: Patrick Keys is scum who neither respects nor listens to women. That sort of person is not welcome at NB. Defenders should hold their tongues until they see the evidence, which will be available in hard-copy, anonymized, at NB next week.
> Just sit tight. Defending Patrick on this list is gonna be something you will seriously regret doing when you see all the facts.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss