[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Ronald Cotoni setient at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 04:21:16 UTC 2014


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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140225/fb4e3a2e/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list