[Noisebridge-discuss] tonights meeting, banning Jay

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Wed Sep 14 01:48:51 UTC 2011


On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> Danny wrote:
>
>>  Consensus takes two meetings -- one where the proposal is brought up, and
>> added to the "proposed consensus item" list (so that people have advance
>> warning), and then another to actually have the discussion. No-one
>> proposed
>> the consensus item until after the meeting.
>>
>
> THATS NOT TRUE.  The older lady with the hand-brace (Wish) said what she
> had seen, and I prodded her as to what we should do about it, and she said
> "We should ask him to leave and not come back" and then it was my turn, and
> I EXPLICITLY said that I was proposing that he be banned permanently,
> and that I was seconding Wish's proposal, and that I wanted it considered.
> I'm sure people remember me saying that, but the notes don't reflect that.
> I have meetings at my home too, and I am very careful to clearly state that
> I AM MAKING A PROPOSAL so that that fact doesn't get left out of the
> discussion or notes.
>

Ugh, yeah. I do remember this, but the discussion got side-tracked by
Rubin's objection. I apologise if we didn't flag that -- generally though
when something is proposed like that we definitely have a moment of great
pomposity when the moderator and secretary haggle endlessly over the wording
to be entered into the log. It should have been noted, but we didn't get to
finish the process. Given that the point of taking two weeks is to give
everyone adequate warning, there's not much that can be done about that, but
we can start up the process now.


>
> There were plenty of people saying that Jay should be kicked out so the
> idea that it didn't make it to the proposal stage is kindof absurd.


> Also i will mention that when I told Mitch that my proposal was immediately
> met with "I block on principle, we always give it a week" he said "that's
> bullshit," if someone is acting wrong and needs to be kicked out you just do
> it.  Mitch won't be at the meeting tonight either though.


That's the do-acratic process Mitch is talking about. You can totally escort
someone out. With Patrick we had both working in parallel, in that he was
thrown out do-acratically immediately, and then we had the consensus process
to impose the permanent ban.

We had a big post-analysis about this (ah, I see it was Kelly who was
heading the post-mortem -- sorry Rachel!)
The notes are here:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2011_04_26
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2011_05_03

I'd hesitate to definitively spell out all the thoughts, but I think my
pithiest description of what was concluded was this:

The do-ocracy can /kick, but they can't /ban -- you can escort somebody out
of the space, and make it clear that you're going to do that in the future,
but if you want a non-time-limited ban enforced by everybody, that needs to
go to the consensus process.

Everyone should have an advocate/liaison on their behalf, and it's
unexcellent to /kick without at least starting a process to get a neutral
moderator to attempt a conciliation.

I think we've done both of these in the current process -- Leif is Jay's
liaison, and the current suspension was do-acratically negotiated. But a
permanent ban does require a full consensus process.

d.




>
>
>  Jay is already on a month voluntary suspension, and we have a bunch of
>> stuff
>> to go over tonight, so what I'll do is add it as a proposed consensus item
>> this week, and then the consensus can happen next week.
>>
>
> that sounds great.  I can't make it to this meeting anyway but I hope
> people will think about what I wrote in my previous email.
>
> -jake
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Danny O'Brien wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>      At last weeks' meeting, there were a number of people who were
>>      on-board with permanently 86ing Jay, the person who spilled beer
>>      on Kayla's computer and many other non-excellent actions and
>>      episodes.
>>
>>      I specifically and repeatedly expressed that I was proposing a
>>      permanent ban, and a few people stated that they would block on
>>      principle, saying that banning someone is a consensus item that
>>      requires a week's advance notice for discussion.  After the
>>      meeting, I spoke with Jason (i think) who agreed that a
>>      permanent ban was appropriate and walked toward the notetaker
>>      stating that he would make sure the weeklong process would
>>      begin.  I don't see my proposal mentioned anywhere in the
>>      meeting notes but I did make the proposal and I think people
>>      should consider that proposal tonight.
>>
>>      I will not be attending the meeting, because of something else
>>      happening. But I wasn't the only one who thought we had had
>>      enough of Jay, and aside from folks playing Devil's advocate (to
>>      a fault) i think we had consensus last week.  Either way, here
>>      are some things to consider:
>>
>>
>>  Consensus takes two meetings -- one where the proposal is brought up, and
>> added to the "proposed consensus item" list (so that people have advance
>> warning), and then another to actually have the discussion. No-one
>> proposed
>> the consensus item until after the meeting.
>>
>> Jay is already on a month voluntary suspension, and we have a bunch of
>> stuff
>> to go over tonight, so what I'll do is add it as a proposed consensus item
>> this week, and then the consensus can happen next week.
>>
>> I imagine a few people will feel that Jay should be able to respond during
>> the final  consensus discussion anyway -- we've offered that before to
>> people who were already effectively under a ban. We'll talk about whether
>> that is what we want today.
>>
>> d.
>>
>>
>>
>>      Jay said "Last Night Duncan spilled a beer on Kayla's computer,
>>      then tried to blame it on me. I was nowhere near him nor was I
>>      anywhere near the computer."
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
>> 2011-September/02<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/02>
>>      4790.html
>>
>>      Kayla said "Last night at noisebridge a man known as to me as
>>      Jay was inebriated and spilled beer on to my $ 3000 15in Macbook
>>      Pro."
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
>> 2011-September/02<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/02>
>>      4794.html
>>
>>      Duncan said "Last night he was very intoxicated and, as I sat
>>      next to Kayla on the couch eating a burrito and enjoying the 1
>>      beer I got with it, he came over to get a laptop off the table
>>      and wanted to apologize for an outburst he had at me earlier.
>>       All fine and good until he decided he wanted a hug from me,
>>      comes over into me sitting down after I'd verbally thanked but
>>      declined, stumbles on a power cord, and drunkenly slurs/knocks
>>      into me... knocking the newly opened beer in my hand and
>>      splashing it all into the keyboard of Kayla's Macbook Pro
>>      laptop.  Seeing it was his intoxication that had caused it,
>>      Kayla was furious as her computer was dead by appearance.
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
>> 2011-September/02<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/02>
>>      4798.html
>>
>>      Instead of reading Jay's long other emails denying
>>      responsibility for everything he's accused of, just look at the
>>      simple fact that he lied to everyone about his involvement with
>>      this one, very serious incident. There are several more people
>>      who witnessed the events that night including Rolf and Alex and
>>      there is no doubt about what happened.
>>
>>      I think this one statement alone should be enough for us to
>>      realize, as a community, that this person can't be trusted in
>>      the space or allowed to come to noisebridge ever again.
>>
>>      As if that weren't enough, i think it's clear at this point that
>>      Jay stole the Carl Zeiss microscope and sold it on Castro
>>      street.  You can read about the discussion in the meeting notes:
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
>> 2011-September/02<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/02>
>>      4838.html
>>
>>      But the crux of it is this.  A few days before the meeting
>>      Duncan had asked someone (RayC?) if a microscope was missing.
>>       RayC asked around and Mike Kan confirmed that the black Carl
>>      Zeiss microscope was missing. Duncan told RayC that he had seen
>>      Jay selling a microscope along with other items on the street in
>>      the Castro.
>>
>>      I found out about this on Tuesday, and before the meeting I
>>      talked with Mike and Danny about it.  Danny interviewed Duncan
>>      before the meeting and Duncan shrank back from certainty about
>>      seeing a microscope when he saw Jay selling on Castro, but he
>>      gave RayC permission to repeat what he had told him earlier
>>      (that he had seen one).
>>
>>      During the meeting Jay was asked what he does for money, and he
>>      listed activities which included selling his artwork on the
>>      sidewalk of the Castro.  This confirmed that he had been selling
>>      things from where he was seen by Duncan.  The microscope is
>>      definitely gone:
>>      http://www.arsmachina.com/**carl_zeiss_binocular.htm<http://www.arsmachina.com/carl_zeiss_binocular.htm>
>>
>>      So the only possibilities are:
>>      1. Jay stole the microscope and sold it on Castro, and Duncan
>>      saw it.
>>      2. Duncan is a clever mastermind who stole the microscope and
>>      framed Jay for it, after spotting him innocently selling Artwork
>>      on the Castro and inserting the story about seeing a microscope
>>      there.
>>      3. Duncan noticed that the microscope was missing and decided to
>>      chance that it wasn't borrowed by someone on the discuss list
>>      (as I am doing) and used the opportunity to frame Jay, after
>>      spotting him at the Castro and modifying his story only slightly
>>      to make it seem true.
>>
>>      Option 1 is the simplest, we already have proof that Jay is a
>>      liar and not responsible for his own actions or even his own
>>      words.
>>
>>      Options 2 and 3 are unlikely because while Duncan is known to
>>      have "seen" things that others think were only imagined, it
>>      would take a very clever and sinister imagination to integrate
>>      the missing microscope into an already-acknowledged true story
>>      of Jay selling items on Castro.
>>
>>      Options 2 and 3 are even more unlikely because if Duncan was
>>      actually a clever mastermind bent on framing Jay for the theft
>>      of the microscope, he would not have shrank back from being sure
>>      of seeing a microscope among Jays items for sale precisely when
>>      he was being interviewed by Danny.
>>
>>      All this is on top of the fact that Jay lied and said he had
>>      nothing to do with the beer being spilled on the computer.  He
>>      might as well say that he wasn't even at noisebridge that night,
>>      with five people yelling at him to leave for half an hour (or
>>      however long it was).
>>
>>      When Duncan came to RayC and asked if a microscope was missing,
>>      it was because he had seen it at Jays' street sale. Duncan may
>>      be a wingnut who says wacky things, but Jay is a thief and has
>>      done more than enough damage to our community to be told never
>>      to return.
>>
>>      -jake
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110913/826fc895/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list