[Noisebridge-discuss] It has come to my attention that...
yan at mit.edu
Tue Jun 25 04:21:16 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Yan Zhu <yan at mit.edu> wrote:
> 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  . 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?
>  I'm not sure if she's on the list still.
 There is no second footnote.
> 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
>> 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.
>> 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:
>>> 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
>>> - 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.
>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>> Liz Henry
>> lhenry at mozilla.com
>> lizhenry at gmail.com
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Yan Zhu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss