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

Frantisek Apfelbeck algoldor at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 13 16:13:39 UTC 2016

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:40:32 +0300
From: Arkady Wroc?awskie <wrocawskiearkady at yandex.com>
To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Statement on Jacob
    Appelbaum    (Simon C. Ion)
Message-ID: <2688161465749632 at web19g.yandex.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi to all,answers in the text as >>>

>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.

>>> So is there a clear way how to "officially ask" someone to leave the group and not to come back = being banned or not? I know that reaching consensus is hard, on the other hand it was clear statement. I will try to go through the rules which apply today at Noisebridge,  for general practice in places/groups where I am active  I would like to know the way now. I understand that there was a big influx of people years ago (before reboot) when basically the community started to suffer because of not being able to cope/decide quickly enough.

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.

>>> It always takes time no matter in which group this is happening, to a degree it is the price which you have to play. At some certain level you realize it is too much for too many and things has to be changed or the group may die. However I have realized over the years that more social and time consuming approach is resulting in more friendly and lively groups - in small to medium size hackerspaces this seems to work quite well, Noisebridge or for example c-base are I think different story they may be too big for this approach on the other hand back in 2009 and 2010 I have seen it work at Noisebridge quite well but there were many people putting enormous amount of time into the "group". 

>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.

>>> It is a pity some of the people did not signed, that would give the message validity, I can see based on the variety of claims why they may not to do so but still it is pity.

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

>>> I may be called old school but for any major announcement by the group a group meeting, if possible in physical form with proxies if necessary should take place. I'm out for many years, so I believe I may comment but the decision of the group is not mine to take, I have been for too long too far. However I have seen most of the hackerspaces which I am in touch making decisions like that on personal meetings.

>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.

>>> Which translates that the open meetings which were held on Tuesdays are not any more the main place to decide the major issues, is this correct? There were many issues discussed over the time but if something was suppose to be "official" it was suppose to be announced in advance and discussed at Tuesday group meeting.

>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 know, I've been aware of his situation over the years at least in general.

>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.

>>> When I was around no one really lived at Noisebridge, I stepped over the line being around for too many nights and using wrong words of "living at Noisebridge" for my style of life at the time which corrected to the US English was that I "lived through Noisebridge" and it was great I have to say.

>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. >>> No, sorry this is not correct interpretation. I have slept at the place occasionally yes. was that wrong yes. Did I wasted all of my time or your time, no, for sure not. Have you actually been around during that period? If not please go through the logs and you will see even now when many years passed that the situation was very different from what you describe from your perspective. I was one of the main people involved at the time and I tried to do my best to move the place and projects which I was after forward in the direction which I believed in. When the issue of me sleeping in the place was being discussed many things came with that. It took meeting or two, hell of discussion on the mailing list, which I had to fallow and respond to and it was sorted in a manner that I could continue to do what I loved in the place without any limitations promising that I will not sleep in the place in the future. Since the issue was brought up we went through that as a group and I think it was done well. I have recognized my mistake and group gave me a pardon, which I have appreciated very much. I wish it did not happened on the other hand now when many years passed I can say that it was one of the major experiences in the groups which I got, took time and energy of others and I will try to pay it back to the movement.

>>> Thanks for the email, I hope that the issue with Jacob will be taken care off in a such manner, than when we or someone else comes back to it in ten years or so, they will see a "mature way" of sorting the issue and "objective decision" taken.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Frantisek

Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck

biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker 


"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160613/3572488d/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list