[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge
crutcher at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 08:22:08 UTC 2011
Hey, I don't _like_ the process. I never have. I've had lots of lengthy
arguments about it. I think consensus leads us to moral hazards like this.
But, there ya go. It's what we have.
Could I interest you in a constitutional democracy? Would you like fries
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com
> 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
> *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:
>> 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 like
>> 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>
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss