[Noisebridge-discuss] proposals concerning banning
dharlette at gmail.com
Sun Mar 2 08:24:39 UTC 2014
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
>> 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 Theora Most
>> naomi at nthmost.com
>> skype: nthmost
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Let's stay in touch. Greg
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss