[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

[Charles Tang]

Let me clarify an arduino aquarium, with function led lights and a tight set of rims.—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Tue, 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 <https://www.dropbox.com/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 <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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140225/c4c6aa07/attachment-0003.html>