[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Charles Tang cjtang1 at asu.edu
Wed Feb 26 02:17:34 UTC 2014


My bad, misinterpretation.—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lee was aware and Lee chose for a long time to not come to meetings or get
> someone else to proxy block.  I suggest you get a deeper understanding of
> how consensus works and why it is the way it is.   It was to give him time,
> which he ignored sadly and has to deal with the consequences now.
> On Feb 25, 2014 6:00 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>> The second person who answers by come to a meeting.
>>
>> These answers are fluid, which is the reason why Johnny asked for
>> clarification on GitHub.
>>
>> We need a better understanding and conceptualizer for banning.
>>
>> I made my case with Lee. It seems to me he was just being annoying to Tom.
>> Now, others do annoying things to me all the time, but I don't exclude.
>>
>> The problem here is a failure to communicate, to ask, to "participate", to
>> educate and to help.
>>
>> Indeed, the community is fractured. Indeed, people can be annoying
>> Indeed, people can do bad things.
>>
>> But, goodness is fragile. Moreover, exclusion is not the answer for our
>> problems. Inquisitions to rid ourselves of alternatives forecloses
>> opportunity for us all.
>>
>> And movements fail. . . .
>> --
>> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> for iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 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/20140225/7125f3b0/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list