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

[Danny O'Brien]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

To be absolutely fair, that was more in confusion, and I certainly didn't
get the sense from yesterday's meeting that Rubin was interested in anything
but the process. If Jay or you thinks Jay has a supporter in Rubin, that
seems to my mind extremely unlikely.

I think if you want this consensus item to work, I believe you need to
address a couple of issues specifically:
1) How to get Jay a representative for the discussion next week,
and 2) Whether a ban makes sense while he's already suspended.

My impression is that these are the sort of things that would generally be
objected to.

I think if you're trying to attain consensus in the belief that the primary
issue is that Rubin wants Jay back in the space, you're going to have
trouble, because a) Rubin really doesn't care that much about Jay getting
back in, and b) you'll have to deal with others  who would worry about a
lack of representation, and whether we should ban during a suspension, etc.

Getting consensus is very tricky, and a lot of people are very cautious
about setting precedents for a ban. If you want to go this way, I'd
definitely stop concentrating on Rubin as a single blocker, and scout out
whether other members of the space are happy with how this is going, and
what they would like.

Again, I'll say that it's not like *I've* spoken to anyone else about this,
so I'm just going on how this process has worked in the past, and the sense
I got in the meeting yesterday. This is one of the reasons why it's
important to attend all of the parts of the consensus process,  and why you
might want to consider giving this more time to get all the ducks in the
row.


d.



>
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110914/ceba500f/attachment-0003.html>