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

[rachel lyra hospodar]

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.

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.

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.

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 voluntary one, with goes out of date on the 6th to the 11th) to cope with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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110919/9592409e/attachment-0003.html>