[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Ronald Cotoni setient at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 02:04:03 UTC 2014

Now for the juicy response.  Mitch, you of all people know how the
consensus process works.   It is on the wiki and explained at every
meeting.  It works so that someone makes a consensus item before one
Tuesday meeting.   This first meeting and the time to the next meeting is
to make everyone aware of said consensus item.   This allows us to include
everyone pretty much always.  It allows council members to proxy block or
whatever the case may be.   It also allows people involved time to plan to
attend a meeting so that perhaps they can defend themselves.   The banning
of Lee was on there for way more than two weeks.  Lee knew of the
proposal.   Naomi should have known about It and perhaps blocked or made a
request before consensus was reached.

Lee is currently unwelcome at noisebridge in its entirety.  If Lee wishes
to change this he should follow noisebridge procedure and create a new
consensus item to reverse the other one.   If he doesn't do that, the ban
is even more legitimate since he is refusing to abide by our rules and

I need all of you who are encouraging Lee to come to the meeting to tell
him not too.   He would be tresspassing.   It is 100% your fault for not
being involved enough to either proxy block or make a request for more
discussion.  Please respect consensus and be excellent.
On Feb 25, 2014 5:53 PM, "Ronald Cotoni" <setient at gmail.com> wrote:

> Come to a meeting.  Read the bylaws and look at the wiki.  These questions
> can be answered by those things
> On Feb 25, 2014 5:47 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>> Is active member defined be the label "member" or is it define by those
>> who are "active."
>> Or is there really a mythical "active member"
>> --
>> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> for iPhone
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On 25 February 2014 17:42, Darius Garza <313kid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > "A ban from the Noisebridge space may be a useful social punishment
>>> for a
>>> > social crime"
>>> >
>>> > Noisebridge is a lot of things, but it certainly isn't up to anyone to
>>> use
>>> > it as a "social punishment" tool.
>>> ... noisebridge is apparently whatever the active membership decide it
>>> is. I thought that was the point.
>>> -a
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20140225/6f535d06/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list