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

[rachel lyra hospodar]

I also am really grateful for Mike's willingness to tell his experience.

Praveen, I am also grateful for your voiced support here, and your attitude
about this kind of stuff in general. It's hard to talk about and it's
something I value about our friendship that we are both willing to try.

Indeed, I agree with you that the full default text of ada initiative would
be inappropriate here. I spent a bunch of time editing it to a shorter,
easier to work with statement more in keeping with the noisebridge
community mores. For example, Ada is written for conference environments
and includes a blanket proscription against explicit and pornographic
imagery, which is simply not in sync with what people at noisebridge would
think was appropriate.

It's great to post another example of a code of conduct.  Thanks! I spent a
few hours doing research before I decided Ada was most appropriate to use
as a starting point.  I then spent an hour or so editing it to remove
language that was inappropriate for the Noisebridge Use Case, and refining
it to consist solely of a definition of the word, and a description of the
social norm for expected response. I'd be really happy to hear any
suggestions on where my read on Noisebridge social norms was inaccurate.
After all, my goal here is simply to provide a description of our cultural
expectations: for our many users who aren't really good at reading social
situations, and for prospective users who are evaluating whether or not
they have found a technology space where people will finally get out of the
way and allow them to flourish.

If anyone has any specific alterations they'd like to suggest or make to
how harassment is defined on the wiki, that's awesome. Praveen, you said
you liked something explicit about communicating that you found in your
example? Can you pull out the relevant section? I can help you reduce it to
something more succinct if you want help figuring out how to do that. I
know you know how to edit the wiki page yourself.

If people want to talk about using another word to define the behavior,
that's cool too.

R.
On Aug 19, 2012 2:15 AM, "Praveen Sinha" <dmhomee at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20120820/fecb61ad/attachment-0003.html>