[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge
rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 09:13:48 UTC 2011
>From the original Banisfesto:
[...]*Patrick, the undersigned have agreed doocratically that you are no*
*longer welcome at Noisebridge. Do not return. If you have possessions*
*in the space you may contact Jason Dusek who will collect them and bring*
*them down to you at the sidewalk. Any of us will, if we see you in the*
*space, ask you to leave and escort you out.*
*Everyone else, we are putting up an official consensus item for banning*
*Patrick from the space.*[...]
@Rubin - Al has asserted that the decision is made, and permanent. There is
nothing in the original text to indicate otherwise. Patrick has been
informed that he is no longer welcome, and asked not to return. No-one is
saying that they will stop escorting him out if the consesus overthrows the
ban on Tuesday.
@Adrian - There is a 50 email long parallel thread discussing your concerns,
as started by myself this morning. You are not alone, but you are in the
@Patrick - If you feel like you're being unrightly accused, why are you
trying to keep the email logs in question out of public view? Do your words
not hold up to public scrutiny? I must admit, I do feel like a bit of an
idiot for defending you on principle here. It is entirely beside the point
whether you believe you have done anything wrong or not in this context -
the simple fact is, you have clearly overstepped somebody else's boundaries,
been informed of this, and refused to apologize. That really is
unacceptable. Apart from that, Azi put it about as succintly as could be:
you really blew it, dude. Seriously, go talk to someone.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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> 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>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss