[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

[Adrian Bankhead]

So, in the name of "do-ocracy", we have the ability to ban people even 
before the group has reached consensus.  And because there is no due process, 
the banned person can't defend themselves.  Do I understand this correctly?




________________________________
From: Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
To: Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net>; noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Sent: Wed, 23 February, 2011 23:22:32
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

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 
process.

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> 
wrote:

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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>


-- 
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110223/7ca7664f/attachment-0003.html>