[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

[Will Sargent]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Zedd Epstein <zedd.00 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

This.

There was a long and involved discussion about the difference between
"do-ocracy" and consensus, and I also went through the Vision
statement at https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge_Vision.  As
I understand it, Do-ocracy is individuals trying to be excellent to
one another, and Consensus is the process by which Noisebridge makes
official decisions.

Do-ocracy does not require permission or an official consensus
decision: it's entirely up to the individuals concerned to exercise
their best judgment in being excellent.  What happened yesterday was
that individuals (lots of them) agreed that the most excellent thing
they could do was to tell Patrick he wasn't welcome in the space,
effective immediately.

We've already done bullet points, so I'll do Q & A:

Q: Is it officially Noisebridge's decision?
A: No, that requires consensus.

Q: Is it temporary until consensus banning happens or doesn't happen?
A: No, even if consensus banning doesn't happen, I believe individuals
(like me) will continue to believe that the most excellent thing we
can do if Patrick shows up is to say he is not welcome in the space,
and make it clear he should leave.

Q: Are there any advantages to consensus banning if you're just going
to be all do-ocratic?
A: Yes.  It sends a clear message that this is an official Noisebridge
decision.  As far as I can tell, no-one likes the status quo.  It's
just all we have right now.

Q: What if individuals decide, after weighing all the evidence, that
they want Patrick to be in the space?
A: If individuals have thought about it and they really truly believe
that it's the most excellent thing they can be doing, then -- absent a
consensus decision -- there's nothing stopping them from letting
Patrick into the space.  If you're seriously considering it, it would
be polite to let everyone know beforehand of your intentions, so that
people who might object can object, and people who don't feel safe
around Patrick can absent themselves.

Q: What if Noisebridge makes an official decision through consensus
that Patrick should have free and open access to the space?
A: Uhhh. Assuming consensus (which is a BIG if)... then as I
understand it... individuals who are impeding that access should cease
and desist immediately, or leave if they do not feel comfortable with
that decision.

Q: Have people ever been banned before?
A: Sure, with Dr. Bobbie.  He was disruptive, of unsound mind, and a
potential danger to himself and to Noisebridge as a whole.  He was
asked to leave and not come back by individuals acting in do-ocracy.

Q: Why is your name on that list?
A: Come to the meeting next week and find out.

Will.