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

Yan Zhu yan at mit.edu
Thu Jun 27 03:10:34 UTC 2013

For clarity's sake, because I had trouble parsing your email: Dru, are you
amending your offer at the meeting last night to abandon 2 of 4
involvements in Noisebridge until "things are resolved" [1]? That is, are
you volunteering to either stay completely out of Noisebridge or stay
completely out of Noisebridge except for Tuesday meetings?

To summarize last night's meeting in greater detail:
* Dru volunteered to stay out of Noisebridge except for post-waste nexus
meetings and general meetings (which I interpret to mean the Tuesday night
NB meeting and the rebase meetings).
* Nobody really had anything to say about that.
* I talked to the assigned mediator in this situation (Carl) about whether
we should have proposed that Dru leave NB entirely until the dispute
against him is resolved, and we agreed that since nobody present at the
meeting had a strong enough opinion to speak up, we would hold off on doing
so for now.

I also talked to Lillian and offered to be her advocate if she wanted to
insist on kicking Dru out of Noisebridge, but her response was that she was
tired of dealing with the situation and, in any case, felt safe because she
is no longer around Noisebridge.

However, it sounds like there are Noisebridge community members (Rachel,
Alex, and maybe Liz?) who were not at the meeting who would like Dru to
stay completely out of Noisebridge for a while.

[1] I'm not clear on how we intend to reach a resolution, given that the
original accuser (Lilian) no longer wants anything to do with the
situation. I get the impression that in Lillian's absence, the persons most
qualified to back up her claim that Dru's presence is detrimental to the
Noisebridge community would be Liz (who has done research that hasn't been
disclosed to the list) or maybe Dante. Then again, there might be consensus
that Dru should be asked to leave anyway on the basis of the evidence so
far combined with his responses to the accusations.

(attempting to be neutral)

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>wrote:

> Though uncertain of the phrase "have the run of the place", I volunteered
> to abandon those projects per Rachel's suggestion at the meeting last night
> and agree to her stronger impression, save Tuesday NB meetings; no one had
> mentioned this matter to me before her, but the intrinsic confounds of a
> strongly involved community member battling libel had already weighed on my
> mind. Similarly, no-one has asked me to cease on this list for reasons
> other than my own benefit until now. I would like to point out that I had
> decided to take Rachel's advice as fatwa well before learning the standard
> procedure, request this be handled in a timely matter, hope that my absence
> from this discussion will not occasion public slagging, and bid you all
> farewell 'till this is cleaned up.
> Best
> -AnB
> On Jun 26, 2013 3:02 PM, "Alexandra Glowaski" <alex.glowaski at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> It's standard procedure to ask people to stay away from the space until a
>> potential social issue has been resolved, through mediation or other means.
>> Quite aside from any potential disputes, bypassing this process reflects
>> poorly on someone's ability to respect others' boundaries. This makes me
>> uncomfortable. If you didn't know earlier, no foul in my book, but please
>> take note.
>> 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
>> --
>> Make your world! • http://alexglow.com
>> I welcome VSRE emails. • http://vsre.info/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Yan Zhu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130626/e5402dfc/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list