[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Wed Feb 26 03:46:32 UTC 2014

I would say whatever is in the bylaws and on the wiki is what it is.   I
believe that means a hackerspa ce that has a community that has issues
dealing with things due to a variety of issues one being victim blaming and
others being unable to effectively deal with most basic issues.   What do
you think noisebridge is?
On Feb 25, 2014 7:38 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> First off -- empirically speaking, the harassment policy is being
> vehemently NOT ignored, but rather vehemently enforced.
>
> What you're observing is the tumult that's occurring because this
> policy and subsequent process are taking the place of
> community resolution.
>
> What you should be asking yourself is whether Noisebridge should be
> thought of as a "community" or as a hack-space vending machine.  If
> the former, then we need to take better care of each other and not
> characterize the world as black and white.  If the latter, then hey,
> why don't we close the space at 11pm and hire security guards.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am going to take this thread as the harassment policy has failed and is
> > being blatently ignored.   Should we just not have one anymore?
> >
> > On Feb 25, 2014 6:53 PM, "Ronald Cotoni" <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Huh.
> >>
> >> On Feb 25, 2014 6:48 PM, "Naomi Gmail" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Uh, maybe some input from the involved parties?!? before leaping to
> >>> conclusions like that?
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Then this is pretty clear that it is harassment.   Right?   What more
> >>> information do we need?
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:32 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think mediation between Tom and Lee is a good idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean Lee seems to want Toms attention for some reason.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you help lee with getting a consensus item on the docket or
> perhaps
> >>>>> mediation?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:23 PM, "Naomi Gmail" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I could have blocked as well, but thought MCT had it covered.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Honestly I just didn't think the proposal would go through. I see it
> >>>>>> as a failure of community and an abuse of bureaucracy that it did go
> >>>>>> through. So I am coming tonight to learn more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Lee Sonko <lee at lee.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> MCT agreed to proxy-block for me several weeks ago. He was at the
> >>>>>> meeting 2 weeks ago when the matter was expected to be discussed,
> however it
> >>>>>> wasn't brought up. Last week MCT wasn't at the meeting so I had no
> >>>>>> representation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I work Tuesday evenings so am generally unable to attend meetings
> but
> >>>>>> I found a substitute tonight.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hope we can all discuss this matter together.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Lee
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 25, 2014 6:07 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 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 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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140225/7f4806cb/attachment.html>