[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

[Crutcher Dunnavant]

Rubin,

This whole slapfight has centered around what 'rights' various people have,
and how we avoid violating them. NB as a whole is very concerned about how
to do this the proper way.ty,

Which is correct and good.

But. But.

Due process, and the defense of the minority from the majority that it
exists to enable, are artifacts of the rule of law.

We, literally, don't have one. You might think "any excellent person will
come to the same conclusion", and this is, essentially, horseshit. Good
people of strong character and noble intentions WILL disagree about these
things; which forces us, in our current process, to tear at the bonds of our
community, rather than resolving our current issues.

Additionally, our charter _does_ say that only members have the right to
speak. Any given week's meeting may choose not to enforce that, but that
remains a choice. I am not a FAN of that. I don't LIKE that. There is a real
problem here, and I'm not trolling. Threatening to slap an abstract
"Someone" for pointing out a flaw in our system kinda sucks. Being told that
my concerns are trolling sucks too. I care about this, I knew we'd get to
this point, because I've been through it before in other groups.

I hate that our stupid decision making process is rifting our community,
when this should be simple and straightforward to deal with at a meeting
with a quorum. I'm glad this isn't a rape accusation we're fighting over,
because I think we'd end up losing half our membership, because I've seen
THAT before too.

Please understand that I'm not trolling.
Thanks.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote

> Crutcher Dunnavant wrote, On 20110223 232232:
> > Patrick doesn't have any rights to defend himself; because no one at
> > noisebridge has the right to defend themselves from consensus.
>
> Please see my previously email to the list. Nothing and no one are
> stopping Patrick from deafening himself or communicating to anyone.
> Consensus gives him and everyone else a week to discuss/defend either
> side of this.
>
> > Our charter doesn't define a criminal system, it merely defines a
> consensus
> > process.
>
> You could call that a feature, but knowing you Crutcher you wont. :P
>
> > If he's not a member, he doesn't even have the right to speak at a
> meeting.
>
> Yes he does. I'd be happy to slap anyone in the face who says otherwise
> to a non-member.
>
> Members can bring things up for consensus and either block or allow
> consensus on an item.
>
> Non-members can participate in discussion regarding consensus, and they
> have as much power as they want to possibly get other members to see eye
> to eye with them about allowing something to pass or not. Same goes with
> bringing up a consensus item. If you can't "win over" a member, then
> that might say something about the items ability to pass.
>
> There's nothing stopping a non-member from speaking at a meeting.
>
> Now if a non-member OR member is bantering on forever and ever and not
> allowing others to speak or letting the meeting's agenda progress along
> (like you have Crutcher!), people (I) will tell them to shut up.
>
> > Now, I don't _like_ he consensus process, but that's the one we've got;
> and
> > in that process ... he's SOL.
>
> I'm strongly against Patrick ever returning to Noisebridge, but I don't
> think he's shit out of luck and would be thrilled if consensus wasn't
> required in the end.
>
> --
> Rubin Abdi
> rubin at starset.net
>
>


-- 
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110224/1cb0dd6d/attachment-0003.html>