[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

Thu Feb 24 09:24:21 UTC 2011

So, I guess it's my turn to defend the actions of the people that did,
instead of the people that bitched. I'm way too lazy to actually try and put
this in paragraph form, so I'm just going to put it in a bulleted list.

*Officially Patrick hasn't been banned from the space. There are a number of
us that will remove him if he comes to the space, and we put our names on a
convenient list so he knew who he should try and avoid. Remember, there are
no rules at Noisebridge. I can say that you can't come to the space, and I
expect you to tell me to fuck off.

*This letter was part of the discussion process. Consensus is the last
resort. This is us applying as much social pressure as we can to explain
that we feel his actions are wrong.

*Personally I'd be willing to let Patrick come to the meeting next week and
defend himself.

*I don't feel that there should be a process for banning people from the
space. This should be a last resort, and there shouldn't be a set way to do
it. In this specific case, a number of people have talked to Patrick and he
has pedantically picked apart anything that they said.

*The evidence is on it's way. We're making every effort to have it all put
together as soon as possible. As long as it's made available as quickly as
people are able, and with enough time to digest it before consensus happens,
I don't see why everyone's so upset about not having it right now.

*If someone has to ask you for an apology you don't mean it, and don't think
that what you have done is wrong.

*Saying that someone has only been at the space a few times, so it's not the
communities job to look out for their interests is fucking astonishing.

There's been a metric fuck ton of emails that came in since I started
writing this.

Zedd

Sorry for the brevity, sent from my WAAAMBULANCE.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com
> wrote:

> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110224/b3d57520/attachment-0003.html>