[Noisebridge-discuss] Enlightenment & its discontents (response to Rachel, Jim, Frantisek et al)

Sun Aug 19 09:15:52 UTC 2012

Wow, thanks for the courageous and thoughtful relaying of your experience
here Mike.

I also do think we should have some form of a anti-harassment stance:  as a
community we should be on the forefront of innovating on this, not fighting
it.

That said, I think per se copy-paste of geekfeminism rules won't work with
noisebridge in that we do host lots of sexually themed events and flying
dongs and the like, and I don't think anyone would want that aspect of
noisebridge to go away.  Clearly, we want to be able to feel safe, and
quickly address patterns of harassment.

I think it's worth taking a look at OpenSF's polyamorous conference code of
conduct, which I really liked because it blankets a the broad range of
sexualities we have at noisebridge, and forces people for explicit
communication and consent:

http://www.open-sf.org/conduct.html

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mike Schachter
<mschachter at eigenminds.com>wrote:

> But since I've already done so, I might as well elaborate on why I think
> it'd be good for Noisebridge, and really any public-facing space, to adopt
> an anti-harassment policy/statement.
>
> I'm a flawed individual, like many others, and have made lots of mistakes,
> especially when I was younger. Some of these mistakes were along the
> lines of what would be considered harassment. Instead of receiving
> negative feedback, these actions were simply ignored or even reinforced
> from the people (men) around me.
>
> I think that happens alot, all over the world, and ideas from people like
> Rachel, my female friends, and my lady-partner have helped me figure
> out where I've been going wrong and helped reinforce positive behaviors.
>
> I don't think any such policy would affect the incorrigible types, but what
> would? I think an anti-harassment policy would just help guide people who
> may not have been brought up in the most accepting environments to
> re-evaluate their attitudes and behaviors, and provide a clear framework
> for them to do so.
>
>   mike
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Mike Schachter
> <mschachter at eigenminds.com> wrote:
> > Also sorry for hijacking this thread... admittedly I didn't read much
> > of the content
> > before replying.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Mike Schachter
> > <mschachter at eigenminds.com> wrote:
> >> I'm really sorry to see Rachel's initial suggestion for Noisebridge to
> >> adopt some sort of anti-harassment statement devolve into something
> >> more drama oriented and personal.
> >>
> >> I'm also sorry to see so many people not support her suggestion for
> >> Noisebridge to adopt any sort of anti-harassment statement. I really
> >> don't see how anything negative could come of doing so.
> >>
> >>  mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
> >> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Tony,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for working to engage in a considered way on this issue!  It's
> >>> a really uncomfortable but necessary one!  Regrets for any lack of
> >>> clarity around the way I read nb-discuss, some more details and some
> >>> thoughts on why I shared the fact of the filtering:
> >>>
> >>> I use this email address for mailing lists, I belong to many.  Mailing
> >>> lists are, to me, still the single most fungible and successful tool
> >>> for creating online communities.  By filtering mail from certain lists
> >>> to certain folders, I am able to subscribe to many high-volume lists
> >>> and scores of low-volume lists without having undifferentiated chaos
> >>> in my inbox.
> >>>
> >>> I am deeply interested in the metacognitive repercussions of the
> >>> "sortability" of electronic commmunications.  For example, I have six
> >>> or seven arduino and microcontroller-specific mailing lists that all
> >>> sort into one shared folder.  This way, when I am working on
> >>> electronics or seeking to delve into the topic further, I have one
> >>> really rich place where all those email inputs are collected.  It is
> >>> interesting to me the way this creates a psychologically real 'bounded
> >>> space' that is functionally identical to a room full of people.  I put
> >>> Michael Shiloh and the amarino toolkit list into the same room because
> >>> I want to read them at the same time.
> >>>
> >>> I put sustainability interest groups and lists together, small
> >>> business & neighborhood localization lists together, etc.  I actually
> >>> send nb-discuss, nb-announce, and all of my noisebridge sublists to
> >>> the same folder.  Which I read regularly.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes, when someone is still getting their shit together on how to
> >>> setup their list, they will put me on but then the way the emails
> >>> comes in varies so much I have to make a number of different filters
> >>> to keep them in the correct folder and out of in the main inbox.  Then
> >>> I sometimes solve the problem by filtering all of that person's emails
> >>> to the right place.  Their incompetent netiquette loses them their
> >>> access to my primary inbox.  Some people go one step up the ladder and
> >>> issue new email addresses for each list they are on, so they can track
> >>> who shares their address and if needed remove the offenders' ability
> >>> to reach them at all.  Once I set up some more stuff I might go
> >>> further down this route, but for now I only do this in a few cases.
> >>>
> >>> I have done this here as a metacognitive hack to place these
> >>> interactions with Frantisek back into the public sphere.  I am sharing
> >>> that I have done it, as a way of documenting the hack and
> >>> open-sourcing it.
> >>>
> >>>> good guys, too. This awkward discussion could lead to something
> >>>> enlightening, purrr haps?
> >>>
> >>> That's my hypothesis, and is of course the reason I initiated and I am
> >>> forcing the continuation of the conversation even though it is
> >>> awkward.  I wish I thought that you had noticed this congruency,
> >>> instead of this sentence reading to me as a piece of advice.  But hey,
> >>> maybe it's not even advice or maybe it's advice that is not directed
> >>> at me, and you are agreeing with me and stating your good opinion of
> >>> my solution.
> >>>
> >>> I can only hope that over time support of and agreeance with the
> >>> specific actions I am taking in this realm would be more often stated
> >>> explicitly rather than implicitly.  It really speeds up the adoption
> >>> of the technologies I am building.
> >>>
> >>> hey, a girl can dream, can't she?
> >>>
> >>> R.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Tony Longshanks LeTigre
> >>> <anthonyletigre at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Rachel Lyra wrote:
> >>>> Frantisek emailed me privately, but I am responding publicly.
> >>>>
> >>>> The text of his email is included below. I've done this
> before....once,
> >>>> twice, three times maybe? When I felt someone has sent me something
> >>>> privately that should be addressed by the community at large. In such
> cases
> >>>> I don't ask permission, the same way I don't always ask permission
> when
> >>>> borrowing things from the web for zines I make. I believe in taking
> what you
> >>>> need, to a certain point. I accept a certain amount of "being taken
> from" as
> >>>> "That's Life," by the same token. I'm aware when posting a private
> message
> >>>> publicly that it is a breach of the usual protocol & therefore
> reserved for
> >>>> certain (usually heated) occasions. I've also done it in the past
> knowing
> >>>> (to my annoyance) that it would be dismissed as "stirring up drama,"
> since I
> >>>> know I was branded that way at a time when there was a lot of
> inappropriate
> >>>> shit happening @ Noisebridge that I was calling people on. (I solved
> that
> >>>> problem by making my visits to NB more sporadic & usually not staying
> very
> >>>> long.)
> >>>>
> >>>> One thing I don't get, Rachel, is that you said you don't as a rule
> read
> >>>> NB-Discuss posts, you filter them to your junk bin, is that correct? I
> >>>> suppose the majority of NB-Discuss posts aren't worth your time, but
> it does
> >>>> strike me as a little arrogant that you deign to engender (ha!) a
> dialogue
> >>>> on a mailing list that you otherwise ignore. How do you know others
> aren't
> >>>> starting dialogues on similarly important matters the rest of the
> time?
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps I misunderstand you. I agree with much of what you're saying
> & even
> >>>> relate to your fierce attitude in a lot of ways. I think Frantisek &
> Jim are
> >>>> good guys, too. This awkward discussion could lead to something
> >>>> enlightening, purrr haps?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yr friendly neighborhood Tiger
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120819/9dde14c6/attachment-0003.html>