[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge
crutcher at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 07:22:32 UTC 2011
Patrick doesn't have any rights to defend himself; because no one at
noisebridge has the right to defend themselves from consensus.
Our charter doesn't define a criminal system, it merely defines a consensus
If he's not a member, he doesn't even have the right to speak at a meeting.
Now, I don't _like_ he consensus process, but that's the one we've got; and
in that process ... he's SOL.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com
> Are you just "fairly certain" or can you (or anyone) provide absolute
> assurance that Patrick will have the ability to respond formally to the
> that have been made against him before he is banned? Or is that not how
> work around here? Has Patrick been informed of his right to defend
> and has he been formally invited to answer these *very* serious
> Because until I raised the question, I had not seen any discussion at all
> Patrick's rights with regards to being banned. I had assumed that he had
> banned from your first "ban" email, and that his ban would simply be
> after-the-fact in group discussion. ("Trust us") Apparently I went through
> a hundred emails and I've mistaken (and horrified) the whole time. If I
> then Patrick might be as well.
> I'm sorry for pressing the issue - but I'd like to feel like I'm joining a
> rather than a lynch-mob.
> Also, do you really think that seeking clarification about process is
> all over the email list"? Are you telling me that my only option to trust
> 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
> > given the opportunity to speak in his own defense to the group, or to
> > 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
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss