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

Tue Sep 20 22:51:44 UTC 2011

Danny,

I'm close to blocking this one, for the reasons you mention,
e.g. 'Said he's not coming back'

Theres a few people I notice at NoiseBridge who have a tendecy to be
drunk, but I don't think we're at the point of naming and shaming
them.

There is a few cases of people who were told to leave, e.g Salvadore
Dali Lama and not come back, without formal consensus.

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>