[Noisebridge-discuss] proposals concerning banning

[Naomi Gmail]

Yep that's why the wording of the requirement is "offered mediation".  Not that mediation actually take place. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:24 AM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm okay with us having to notify people (within reason; for example, a post to NB discuss should be sufficient), but I am absolutely NOT okay with us requiring mediation in cases of harassment.  Forcing someone who has been abused to sit down with their abuser (especially in cases where sustained unwanted communication is the problem in the first place) is a great way of preventing people from coming forward in the first place.
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The community meeting approach has promise.   I'm concerned with the current  systems' unfairness when the stay away part of the procedure - which is good for  defusing a problem -  creates insurmountable impediments to bring witnesses necessary for a fair listening.  Especially because, people don't have every members contact information, and if one can't go to the space, it is become nearly impossible to find the witness necessary for a fair hearing.
>> 
>> The difficult is intensified if one person faithfully adheres to the request to stay away and the other person does not.
>> 
>> A community meeting based approach would hopefully allow the situation to be "frozen" in a designed safe fashion, and except in exceptional circumstances, allow the parties to the conflict the chance to find the witnesses to the "big" event. 
>> 
>> This is important stuff.  Thanks.
>>     
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Naomi Most <nthmost at icloud.com> wrote:
>>> Things that come to mind on a day when I am feeling more friendly to the idea of formal policy:
>>> 
>>> 1) Only one person per proposal for consensus ban.  More than that is madness.
>>> 
>>> 2) The "up for discussion" phase of a proposal to ban (i.e. the first week that an item is formally discussed at a meeting) may only take place if the involved parties who have assented to be contacted have been contacted, and if those involved & assenting parties have been offered mediation and/or community-based resolution.  This must be done in writing, or in person and then recorded in writing.
>>> 
>>> I am not a github native (I only just converted to mercurial from subversion /last year/) and don't feel at home with the pull-request-based policy process.  So I'm writing my thoughts here and offering them up for skewering on the list.
>>> 
>>> #2 is predicated on the idea of there being an enacted "community meeting"
>>> 
>>> Your friend,
>>> Naomi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>> 
>>> skype: nthmost
>>> 
>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140302/68a040b1/attachment-0003.html>