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

Tue Sep 20 20:45:36 UTC 2011

So, given that Jay has said he's not coming back (people are free to email
him to confirm this language), I'm going to withdraw my proposed consensus
items, because I don't believe NB should pursue pre-emptive rules (people
are free to take my language and propose it themselves).

I'm not going to block, because I am personally, currently, uncomfortable
wielding proxy power without being at a meeting; I haven't thought this out
entirely and don't begrudge others: it just feels wrong to me.

I would ask, though, for the meeting to consider what a ban would achieve,
given that the guy has said he's not coming back, and the moment he does
everyone here would chase him out anyway (or if they would't, are unlikely
to change that behaviour in the face of some magic new rule).

Also, what kind of new microscope would people like?

D.
On Sep 20, 2011 2:53 PM, "Christopher Lincoln" <cclinco at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had purposely tried to avoid getting involved in this issue about Jay. I
> was not there for any of the episodes described previously in the mailing
> lists, nor have I been to any of the meetings where this has been
discussed
> and when this does come to trial on October 11th, I’ll most likely be
> absent. So please do not take this message as an endorsement or commentary
> on Jay in specific.
>
> 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.
>
> I for one would find it unacceptable, if somebody were to accuse me of
> misconduct, for the community to put me on trial and pass judgment while
at
> the same time deliberately denying me the ability to participate in the
> proceedings or to defend myself against the leveled allegations. If you
> were the one to be accused, would you find these proceedings to be
> acceptable?
>
> With this in mind I will be at the meeting tonight, and I will block any
> motions that attempt a trial in absentia.
>
>
> Christopher
>
> P.S. Jake, sorry about sending this message to you twice. After sending it
> to just you, I thought it would be best to let the rest of the message
board
> also know my stance.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>
>> i'll be here october 11th but i'm also bringing it up tomorrow.
>> if anyone feels like blocking banning a thief and liar, show up and let
>> noisebridge know you care..about lying thieves.
>>
>> -jake
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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<
Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss<
https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20110920/31a01b3b/attachment-0003.html>