[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Wed Feb 26 04:20:20 UTC 2014

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