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

[Rubin Abdi]

Christopher Lincoln wrote, On 2011-09-20 11:52:
> What I do want to comment on is precedent. How we handle this situation with
> Jay can and will be used in the future when dealing with new problems that
> arise.  Our approach must reflect how we would like Noisebridge to handle
> these situations not only when we are the accuser (as it is now), but also
> when we are the accused.

We had this discussion with our previous banning of someone a few months
ago. Some of our fears was the exact opposite, we didn't want to set the
bar for what would constitute a ban due to interpretation. We wanted a
ban to be a last resort, in extreme cases where more social solutions
have completely failed (and this was the case with that ban).

It took Noisebridge 2.5 years from initially opening its doors before
banning someone through the consensus process was appropriate, and it
took a massive effort by the community to provide social solutions (all
of which failed) and evidence of extreme social misconduct before we
actually got to that meeting (after a series of other very lengthy
meetings). 6 months later and the general feel of the community I have
now is that since we did this banning thing once, we should be able to
do this again without, ummm, do-diligence? That doesn't seem right to me.

-- 
Rubin
rubin at starset.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110920/29317b7c/attachment-0003.sig>