[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Wed Feb 26 04:21:43 UTC 2014

So, in other words, you see the world in black and white.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> The same thing can be said of the opposite and this is where we are now.
>
> On Feb 25, 2014 8:20 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm with you.
>>
>> What I'm pointing out is that -- and I do like most of the rules and
>> policies that have been made so far -- our culture is a work in
>> progress.  Taking all existing policy decisions as sacrosanct puts
>> Noisebridge into a more and more fragile and rigid stance where it
>> can't adapt or improve.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would say anything that has passed consensus is also a rule until
>> > consensus changes it.   I would also say that the harassment policy is
>> > common sense and speaks of treating others with respect which falls
>> > under be
>> > excellent but due to differing definitions of excellence we needed to be
>> > more specific since we suck at policing ourselves.   Ideally we should
>> > have
>> > other members stepping in and saying stop being unexpected but everyone
>> > hates confrontation and when someone confronts someone we have tons of
>> > bike
>> > shedding and victim blaming. Not great For Us And Our Image.  I hate
>> > being
>> > the laughing stock of the hackerspa ce com.unity.   I hate that we
>> > couldn't
>> > make a safe enough space for everyone to feel comfortable so another
>> > space
>> > had to be made with more logic.
>> >
>> > On Feb 25, 2014 7:50 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would say that the only permanently binding "rule" at Noisebridge is:
>> >>
>> >> Be Excellent to Each Other
>> >>
>> >> Everything else is an experiment.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Naomi Theora Most
>> >> naomi at nthmost.com
>> >> +1-415-728-7490
>> >>
>> >> skype: nthmost
>> >>
>> >> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Naomi Theora Most
>> naomi at nthmost.com
>> +1-415-728-7490
>>
>> skype: nthmost
>>
>> http://twitter.com/nthmost

-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost