[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting notes 2011-09-13

[Danny O'Brien]

I
On Sep 19, 2011 9:10 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If someone has been this big of a problem, I would prefer if the model we
use to deal with them defaulted towards 'return of problem person allowed
only after a meeting where they are discussed and have an advocate present'
instead of a default setting where time erases all wounds.
>

I may have misunderstood, but Isn't that what I just proposed? Or at least
as close a fix as I can reach given that there's a one month ban, and people
think jay should have the right to advocate for himself.

> If someone is accused of making women socially uncomfortable we go all
ballistic on them, but if they steal our shit they get a simple time out?
This kind of bullshit behavior is just as alarming to me as Harassing the
Womenfolk.  I want us to treat it as a Big Deal, and I don't feel safe with
this person returning to the space until the meeting where we discuss the
fallout from his actions AND HE MIGHT GET BANNED instead of allowed back in.
>

I agree, and would not have supported the one month suspension, but this was
proposed and quickly negotiated by a bunch of people, which I believe did
not include Rubin.

Two other alternatives: bringing the ban forward so that Ray can attend
earlier, making Leif his advocate.

> We are not toddlers, and timeouts are good for defusing tense feelings,
not solving real problems.
>
> I will be note taking october 11th, and that date works great for me.
Jake?
>
> I do NOT think jay should return before the meeting about him, regardless
of when we have it.

Yeah I *think* everyone is agreed on that.

D.

>
> mediumreality.com
>
> On Sep 19, 2011 7:43 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> >
> >> yes I can see why you wouldn't want to be the only one propping up Jay,
> >> because I will ask the notetaker to record exactly who is objecting to
> >> banning Jay, and those people will be asked later why they thought it
was
> >> necessary, after he returns for a second helping and takes the rest of
the
> >> microscopes.
> >>
> >
> > In the interest of pointing out the potential compromise positions, I'd
say
> > that if this one fails, it's entire possible to propose a second
banz0ring
> > session on October 11th.
> >
> > That would give Jay an opportunity period from the 6th-11th to come in
and
> > steal all the microscopes, of course.
> >
> > So if that period of what I will call "temporary microscopy saturnalia"
> > isn't acceptable, someone can also move to extend Jay's ban (or more
> > technically, insert an involuntary period of bannination between Jay's
> > voluntary one, with goes out of date on the 6th to the 11th) to cope
with
> > this contingency.
> >
> > These two proposals would I think comply with all members' current
concerns
> > that I am aware of, and perhaps give time to reconcile the hundred or so
> > more that will surely instantly arise to take their place.
> >
> > Blocking either proposal would of course be an indication of sour grapes
and
> > microscope-hating anarchy (and not the good kind of anarchy, the baad
baad
> > kind) and people doing so should be put on a list for all to see.
> >
> > I'm not going to be here for any of this stuff, being in an *actual*
court
> > of law that week, but I'll put it in as a suggestion in tomorrow's notes
> > anyway.[1]
> >
> > I also, as I mentioned to a few people, I emailed Jay telling him that
> > there's a proposal to ban him, and advising him it's probably sensible
for
> > him to stay the hell away from our amazing whirling dervish of an
> > organization for all time.
> >
> > Al, would you like me to suggest he check out Ace Monster Toys? [2]
> >
> > Hail Eris!
> >
> > d.
> > [1] Has anyone actually volunteered to be the note-taker at tomorrow's
> > meeting yet? Oh, noooooooo.
> > [2] I kid! I was going to send him down to Biocurious.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Rubin Abdi wrote:
> >
> >> Kelly wrote, On 2011-09-18 23:28:
> >>> Is there
> >>> someone who will be at the meeting next week to block / defer the ban
for
> >>> future consideration?
> >>
> >> I know of others out there who feel the same, I would appreciate it I
> >> wasn't the only (vocal) one at this next meeting.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rubin
> >> rubin at starset.net
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110919/4c670cf8/attachment-0001.html>