[Noisebridge-discuss] It has come to my attention that...

Yan Zhu yan at mit.edu
Tue Jun 25 04:04:23 UTC 2013

Hi Carl (and Noisebridge),

Thanks for the information. I had the impression that Liz was acting as
Lillian's advocate, but if this is not the case and one is needed, I'll
volunteer with Lillian's permission [1] [2]. However, I will be leaving the
country in two weeks, so I won't be able to interact with you all in-person
past then.

Carl: Is there any other mediation help that you need?

[1] I'm not sure if she's on the list still.


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Liz Henry <lizhenry at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds reasonable Carl.  I think it is not so much "to decide Dru's fate"
> but, to decide whether we want to hang out with him and basically welcome
> him.
> I think the idea of Dru remaining away from the space until he can come to
> a meeting where  this is discussed is a good one.
> Cheers
> Liz
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Carl <carl at icarp.info> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Lillian, and others involved...
>> I apologize for not getting on this mediation sooner.  I've been ill this
>> past week.  It would be helpful if others would also like to step up to
>> help.  (so far Liz and Kevin have stepped up)
>> Perhaps "mediation" isn't the correct term to use, how about "task
>> force", "committee", or "investigation".  Anyhow, we use the term
>> "mediation" because that is the process that Noisebridge has set up for
>> issues like these.  We even have a wiki page set up for it:
>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Mediation
>> On that page it suggests that in order for a problem to brought up at a
>> group meeting, someone must step forward to act as an "advocate" for the
>> individual.  All parties involved should have advocates when an issue is
>> brought up at a weekly meeting.
>> The reason that nothing has been done so far, prior to Lillian's posting
>> on the mailing list last week, is that:
>> 1.  No one has been actively advocating on Lillian's behalf, although Liz
>> did bring up the issue at a meeting.  I hope that someone will stand up to
>> advocate on her behalf (if not Liz).
>> 2.  There wasn't sufficient information presented for the membership to
>> make any decision on banning.  Basically, all we knew was that some person,
>> who wished to remain anonymous, was accusing Dru of sexual harassment,
>> while no description of what occurred was presented, and no other witness
>> accounts came forth.  It shouldn't be any surprise that this was
>> insufficient for a motion to ban someone.
>> Since Lillian came forth with her account of events, we have more
>> detailed info to act upon.
>> The recent revelation of emails between Dru and Dante may also help shed
>> light on the case.
>> Dru denies any wrongdoing.
>> We can't just automatically ban Dru without some sort of due process, at
>> least not permanently, as Lillian suggest.  What we can do is temporarily
>> ban Dru while this investigation takes place.  This may be a course of
>> action we can take to be brought up at the next meeting.
>> The next steps then are as follows:
>> - Fact finding.  Obtain any other relevant evidence and witness accounts.
>>  I would highly encourage others to come forth to tell us what you know.
>>  If you wish to remain anonymous, you may contact either myself or Liz, for
>> the time being, and we will respect your wishes.
>> - Since Noisebridge is taking upon itself to act as a "court" to decide
>> Dru's fate, we should establish some procedures to handle this.  Each party
>> must have an advocate.  Evidence is to be presented.  A jury weighs the
>> evidence and makes a judgement.  Typically the jury is simply the
>> membership present at a Tuesday night meeting.
>> - If it is decided that Dru did wrong based on the evidence presented, or
>> that it be decided that he is likely to cause harm in the future, then the
>> jury would also consense on a course of action that Dru must follow.  This
>> may be a permanent ban.  It may be something else, such as require him to
>> take a course on "sexual harassment sensitivity", which some workplaces
>> require -- I don't know.
>> - This is assuming he is found guilty.  Some may not be convinced that he
>> is.  That is why we need to collect evidence and go through this process.
>> - Dru says that he is wrongly accused.  He at least deserves to present a
>> defense, since it's his reputation on the line.
>> Some evidence that I would like to find out more about:
>> - Lillian says "others who still use the space have expressed to me that
>> they don't feel safe around Andrew either." - We would like to hear this
>> testimony.
>> - I still haven't talked with Dante about his experience and the emails.
>> - Any other witnesses.  We need you to come forward.
>> I think Noisebridge is very much concerned about safety in our space, and
>> we certainly would like to avoid scaring people off from coming here, as
>> well as our reputation.  Issues like these are never pleasant to deal with,
>> but we do because as in any community these issues do come up.  It's good
>> that we're out in the open about it, even though it risks alienating people
>> from visiting our space, I think it's overall better this way.  It's like
>> open-source software vs. closed-source:  We risk showing the world all our
>> bugs, but at least they're more likely to be fixed, vs. hiding our bugs and
>> not fixing them.  I think the alternative would be a space that isn't as
>> safe.
>> cheers
>> -Carl
> --
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> Liz Henry
> lhenry at mozilla.com
> lizhenry at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Yan Zhu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130624/141fd33b/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list