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

[Kelly]

It sounds like this issue really should have progressed to some form of
formal conflict resolution earlier. I thought about it when the initial
laptop incident occurred, but I have been crazy busy and forgot about
it. Unfortunately I will also be missing this week's meeting, and the two
thereafter, and I've missed the last couple meetings as well.

For reference, here are the guidelines we came up with in the last
bannination post-mortem:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/ConflictResolution
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Mediation

I think that a lot of what Jake has expressed sounds reasonable, and I
always appreciate people who are willing to stand up and be protective of
the space. These are the people that help balance out our generally liberal
policy of allowing clinically insane people to wander in off the street and
camp out. However, I also think that if there is a 1 month suspension in
place, it's drastic to pursue any further action regarding restricting Jay
from the space until that's over.

I do think that further action should be pursued though. Reading over the
meeting notes, I'm really concerned with seeing a wide variety (and not just
a couple individuals) of people objecting to Jay's continued presence in the
space. I'm also particularly alarmed about the microscope--is it indeed
missing?

I would really like to see some clear roles emerge here, so that people who
are just now hearing about this can be brought up to speed easily. It sounds
like Leif and Jason have vaguely volunteered for advocate / mediator roles.
Do we have clear claimants? Sounds like Jake and Duncan for sure, but I'd
like to hear from anyone else who feels that a ban is necessary for their
personal comfort in the space. Sounds like maybe Miloh too?

It would be really helpful to me to hear if other claimants feel that a ban
before the end of the suspension is necessary. I'm not currently convinced.
It sounds like Jake is pushing for this, and others feel it's not a bad
outcome but I don't see much actual argument that it's necessary. Is there
someone who will be at the meeting next week to block / defer the ban for
future consideration?

-Kelly

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 17:32, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:

> You're missing the point, I'm not advocating Jay, I'm simply blocking
> any effort by our community to ban anyone who isn't already coming to
> the space.
>
> I'm sorry you feel I used my position as a moderator to prevent such
> discussion. I don't feel the same, but I suppose that isn't the case
> from your perspective. I would recommend you ask for me to not be a
> moderator at future meetings.
>
> I'm not volunteering to be an escort for others and would be just as
> happy as anyone else to have jerks not be in the space. That being said
> I still don't agree with Noisebridge as a group to ban people already
> not allowed in the space, especially if the leave is voluntary.
>
> If you're so adamant about this, you can either continue attacking my
> stance here on the list, or why not ping Jay and see if he'd be willing
> to break his voluntary leave from Noisebridge to possibly accept an
> invite to a meeting where you'll like to propose and discuss banning him
> from the space? Why not ask Leif or another member in good standing to
> act as his proxy?
>
> I understand your perspective, and I know you hang out in the space more
> than I utilize it (or many of us who are vocal at the meetings), and
> there are more people at Noisebridge who deal with the crazies and jerks
> (myself being one of those) than I see, and I'm some pompous asshole
> who's more or less grandfathered in being all influential with a booming
> voice at meetings, but I still see banning as a last resort, and very
> much would like the avoid that especially if the person in question
> isn't even coming to the space.
>
> Keep in mind I'm more than happy to have a valid discussion about why my
> point of view is incorrect and to have my mind changed on why I would
> want to block such a thing. What I honestly don't want to deal with is a
> finger pointing name calling game on the list. Again, very willing to
> discuss this with you off list.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> --
> 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/20110918/d6d00830/attachment-0003.html>