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

Andrew Byrne andrew at pachakutech.com
Wed Jun 26 21:37:35 UTC 2013

My apologies if I offended you through that missive; I forgot that we work
out our problems on the public email list and was merely asking for your
fatwa, which you gave, thanks. -dru
On Jun 26, 2013 1:50 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am forwarding dru's private response to me to this list, as I have no
> interest in engaging in private discussion with him. I will, as per usual,
> install some filters on my inbox so that any private emails he sends are
> shunted to the same folder as nb-discuss, allowing me to experience them as
> part of that more public space.
> To be perfectly clear, it is my opinion that accused sexual offenders,
> especially ones who are involved in a NB mediation process, should stay
> completely away from the space until matters are resolved.
> To be painfully, explicitly clear, I believe Dru should stay completely
> away from the space until matters are resolved.
> Anyone who would like to come forward with an account of dru's behavior
> but would like to remain anonymous, please feel free to contact me.
> R.
> On Jun 26, 2013 12:59 AM, "Andrew Byrne" <andrew at pachakutech.com> wrote:
>> After thinking on your comment, I am prepared to abandon two out of the
>> four appointments that I have at Noisebridge: The android developers
>> support group that I teach and the docent/redshirt shift, both on Saturday.
>> I think that my continued presence at the Nb rebase meeting, Tue at 6 and
>> the post waste nexus meeting, mon at 7 is within the spirit of your letter.
>> Correct?
>> -dru
>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:19 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> requested).
>>> 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 culture)
>>> 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.
>>> R.
>>>  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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130626/e7641dde/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list