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

Ronald Cotoni setient at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 22:01:10 UTC 2013

I would suggest not coming to the space again until this issue is resolved.
 I would also suggest you stop posting to the mailing list and any other
noisebridge related communication mechanisms you may be using.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130626/71e7bdeb/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list