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

[Liz Henry]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130624/6a1de0cb/attachment-0003.html>