[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

[Adrian Bankhead]

Rubin,

Are you just "fairly certain" or can you (or anyone) provide absolute 
assurance that Patrick will have the ability to respond formally to the charges 
that have been made against him before he is banned?  Or is that not how things 
work around here?  Has Patrick been informed of his right to defend himself, 
and has he been formally invited to answer these *very* serious allegations?  
Because until I raised the question, I had not seen any discussion at all of 
Patrick's rights with regards to being banned.  I had assumed that he had been 
banned from your first "ban" email, and that his ban would simply be ratified 
after-the-fact in group discussion. ("Trust us")  Apparently I went through like 
a hundred emails and I've mistaken (and horrified) the whole time.  If I am, 
then Patrick might be as well.

I'm sorry for pressing the issue - but I'd like to feel like I'm joining a co-op 
rather than a lynch-mob.

Also, do you really think that seeking clarification about process is "pissing 
all over the email list"?  Are you telling me that my only option to trust you?  
Is this how things work at Noisebridge?

----- Original Message ----
From: Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net>
To: Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com>; Noisebridge Discuss 
<noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
Sent: Wed, 23 February, 2011 20:20:15
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

Adrian Bankhead wrote, On 20110223 194552:
> In addition to the fact a definitive action was taken before people had time to 
>
> consense, the thing that I'm most disturbed about is that Patrick was never 
> given the opportunity to speak in his own defense to the group, or to reply 
> formally to accusations ("evidence").  Even if he is a total scumbag, he 
> still deserves the opportunity to defend himself prior to banning.  And 
> Noisebridge guard jealously its collective autonomy, which is strengthened when 
>
> it protects the rights of the accused and insists on hearing arguments from all 
>
> sides before making decisions.

No decision has been made. I'm fairly sure he's welcome to defend
himself here, in person to anyone and at the next Tuesday meeting.

The two things that were established at the meeting were...

* A bunch of people would like it if Patrick wasn't allowed in the space
due to reasons related to people feeling unsafe around him, and will
make this known to him in person if he does show up in the space,
additionally will ask him to leave. I'm sure some will be more graceful
then others. A list of these people is attached to the first message of
this thread. How each of these people actually do the ask will differ
from person to person. I'm one of those people.

* A consensus item to be brought up at the next meeting to formally ban
Patrick from the space. This is giving everyone, including Patrick, a
week to figure things out. This discussion is part of that figuring
things out.

Folks can bitch and moan about how wrong this is. That's great. None of
you are Patrick. If I was in his shoes, and all that was said about me
was false, I would have either said something by now or decided that
this community isn't worth my time and moved on.

All in all, unless Patrick has a good bullet pointed response to all
that is against him and resolves our issues, even if we don't reach
consensus next week (we wont, taking bets now), I think the general tone
has been established that a bunch of really awesome people would like
him to not be a dick and/or never to return to Noisebridge again and
that he's gotten part or all of that message.

If you think differently, stop bitching about it on the list and
actually seek us out and talk to us directly about why we feel this is a
positive course of action tot take for the space. Pissing all over the
mailing list without actually talking with those involves doesn't really
help folks.

-- 
Rubin Abdi
rubin at starset.net