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

rachel lyra hospodar rachelyra at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 20:19:11 UTC 2013

After reading through Carl's email I would like to add that further
witnesses/subjects of harassment who wish to remain anonymous may do so,
while still coming forward and submitting testimony. In previous incidents,
we've followed various procedures WRT this testimony (ie just anonymyzing,
or anonymizing with only paper versions available to further protect, if

I would like to emphasize that this is possible here. History shows us that
overwhelmingly often, the victims of sexual harrassment are subjected to
social abuse and scorn when they come forward. (This is an example of rape

Additionally, I will add that our historical pattern has been to ask the
accused offender to stay away until the matter is dealt with. I believe
this is a good precedent, and I hope if anyone sees Dru in the space they
post about it here. A good way for Dru to show good faith and demonstrate
cooperativity here would be to, well, do so, by agreeing that accused
sexual offenders, while they should be treated fairly, shouldn't have the
run of the place.

 On Jun 24, 2013 11:17 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130625/0a5201b5/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list