[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 03:38:49 UTC 2014


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


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list