[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob Appelbaum (Simon C. Ion)

[Arkady Wrocławskie]

>I have not been around Noisebridge for a while (several years), 
>I’m keeping an eye on the list and meet people at the events. >I would like to know if the “ban” on the people to enter Noisebridge 
>is done still in a way that there has to be consensus reached? Based 
>on the past events I understand that person who may be considered “dangerous” 
>may/should be asked by anyone in the place to leave the place and allowed 
>(if not extremely dangerous) to come back to defend herself/himself at the 
>next group meeting, where based on consensus it is decided if he or she can 
>stay or not -i’m not sure if you still have to wait at least one more meeting
>before the consensus can pass (because of the time needed for the announcement
>etc.)). Is it so or things has changed?

If your presence in the space negatively affects others in the space, you will be asked to leave.
If you come back, and your presence in the space keeps negatively affecting others in the space, you will be asked to leave forever.
You can come to a meeting and plead your case, if you think that will be helpful.

The 100s of hours we spent over the years reaching consensus over bans caused Positive Contributers To The Space 
to avoid coming to Noisebridge. It was not helpful.

>Is it still true that any major announcement by Noisebridge made to public/media is suppose to 
>be done by certain people only who are selected by Noisebridge to do so? 

The announcement email was worked on collaboratively by many people inside of 2169 Mission, and reworked and edited many times.
A group of dedicated volunteers inside of the space decided they could speak for Noisebridge.

While in Korea, you may decide to personally speak for Noisebridge yourself, if you believe you have that authority.

>I’ve read the Noisebridge public statement and I think that making public claim saying that the member 
>is not welcomed by “us” at the place anymore without Noisebridge community having public meeting to 
>discuss it seems to me unfair and non excellent.

It has been discussed at Noisebridge.  You are not in the country.  You were unable to participate in the discussion.

>Especially when there is no reason to assume that Jake would show up at Noisebridge before the next meeting. 

Jake is not coming to the next meeting.  He lives in Berlin, Germany.  He feels unwelcome and persecuted inside of the United States.
He will not be at the next meeting.

>I remember issues happening in the place and there seemed to be enough structure and definitely culture to 
>take care about mishaps, had to go through that by myself. 

The old structure did not work.  I remember long meetings debating about the real definition of hacking and living in the space.
It was a waste of valuable time.  Life is very short.

People no longer live in Noisebridge.  People who do not belong in Noisebridge
are respectfully and compassionately told why they do not belong in Noisebridge.  

There is nothing stopping someone who is asked to leave Noisebridge,
to correct their behavior and come back, unless it involves violence or sexual assault.

I have witnessed community members really go out of their way to accommodate everyone, including offering
help in finding a place to live in crazy San Francisco.

>I would like to ask the Noisebridge community to think and feel this through. This issue is very serious.

I agree the issue is very serious.

>Back than we went by the paper and by the Noisebridge way “be excellent to each other”,

You spent months twisting the definition of "be excellent to each other" and wasting everyone's time so could selfishly live
inside of Noisebridge.
You wasted all of your time.  You risked our lease.
You should think about the consequences of your actions.

>Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html