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

[Jake]

Rubin,

I and others explicitly made a proposal at the meeting while Jay was in 
attendance.  I think most people who were there would agree that you used 
your position as moderator to prevent discussion of the ban, to the point 
that the note-taker said that the reason he didn't record the fact that I 
was making a proposal was because of you steering the discussion away.

I followed all the steps you listed below;  at every turn you have pushed 
to prevent discussion of a ban.  I wrote an email to the list ahead of the 
meeting last night explaining my proposal for a ban, people apparently 
(with your strong influence) chose not to do it at that time.  I have 
announced on the list that I intend to bring the proposal to the next 
meeting, and I put that on the wiki agenda.

> That all isn't to say that I want Jay in the space, quite the contrary.

You're the only person who is advocating for him, and ferociously, without 
explaining how any of the things he has done qualify as excellent.  If you 
are at all serious about your above statement, you will get out of the way 
of the process and allow the community to deal with a problem already.

> I just don't want to solve problems that haven't occurred just yet,
> that'll most likely solve themselves. And on top of all else, we have
> process for this, of which I don't want to see get lost.

as I explained in my message before the meeting,
https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/024929.html
more than enough problems have already occurred, and you have not 
explained how they will solve themselves, only that you will block any 
attempt by others to solve them.

For someone who speaks of preserving the process, you seem hell-bent on 
preventing any process from moving forward.

> I will block any movement to ban a user of Noisebridge while a temporary
> hiatus from entering the space is on for them.

I already said that if it comes down to everyone agreeing to ban Jay 
except for you, I will accept an amendment to my proposal that Jay can 
come to the space while he is escorted and monitored by you.  That way 
you will have no need to block.

-jake

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Rubin Abdi wrote:

> Jake wrote, On 2011-09-14 02:56:
>> As for my proposal to ban Jay, I will say here that I still intend to
>> bring this proposal on 09-20 regardless of people thinking it should be
>> delayed, and I do not want it removed from the agenda.  I see that somehow
>> people consensed on delaying this proposal.  I will be here on 09-20 to
>> make this proposal in person, and I know that it will be seconded at that
>> time, and we can have a discussion.  Consensus process is not based on
>> blocks, it is based on negotiation toward something everyone can agree on.
>>
>> I and at least one other person feel strongly that if Rubin wants Jay to
>> come here but everyone else wants him to stay away, that a reasonable
>> compromise would be that Jay would only be allowed at the space when Rubin
>> was here to be his escort.  We can discuss that at the meeting on 09-20.
>
> Your interpretation of what I said at the meeting is incorrect. I don't
> approve of taking banning action on someone while they're not allowed
> into the space. We all came to a general agreement of being ok with what
> was going on at the end of the 20110906 meeting. One really shouldn't
> kick a person while they're down.
>
> I will block any movement to ban a user of Noisebridge while a temporary
> hiatus from entering the space is on for them.
>
> Additionally you need to go through the popper steps for consensus to
> complete this. You need to bring it up at a meeting (in the meeting
> notes before anyone even shows up), request that it be put up for
> consensus, have a discussion about that exact consensus item with
> everyone in agreement that we're actually talking about something for
> consensus and not just action you feel should be taken, and then be at
> the next meeting (or have a proxy for you) to push that consensus item
> through discussion.
>
> That all isn't to say that I want Jay in the space, quite the contrary.
> I just don't want to solve problems that haven't occurred just yet,
> that'll most likely solve themselves. And on top of all else, we have
> process for this, of which I don't want to see get lost.
>
> Please feel free to message me off list if you'd like to convince me
> otherwise on my stance. Thanks.
>
> -- 
> Rubin
> rubin at starset.net
>
>