Meeting Notes 2013 09 24
These are the notes from the The XXXth Meeting of Noisebridge. Note-taker: Anonymous / Later Dru Bryne to take notes on Adam discussion; Moderator: Kevin.
- One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary.
Short announcements and events
- Note-taker lost this first part of the notes. :(
- Maybe clearing out of the space. Possible discussion item.
- Sci-fi up the space. There's gonna be a group about that.
- Week minus 4 of getting an FM radio band.
- No current applications.
- Funds in bank: ???
- Noisetor (See the bulletpoints at the bottom of http://noisetor.net/finances/#summary):
- Assign Norman as an "officer" to obtain and FRN from the FCC.
- Discussion of whether we should pirate radio or pirate our own radio band.
- Adopt an anti-harassment policy.
- Some clarification on what harassment is / is not.
- Is it OK if someone offends someone but did not intend that?
- No. The impact of what you say/do is more important than your intent.
- You "may" be sanctioned or expelled, so not every instance will result in expulsion. It depends on the situation and what the people involved decide.
- Change "Sexual language and imagery should be only be used for WOMEN-POSITIVE purposes" to simply "Sexual language and imagery should be only be used for POSITIVE purposes". [Enthusiastic agreement.]
- We should care about small things as well as big things, when things happen. (Does not have to mean people get kicked out.)
- What if people use the policy as a weapon to throw out people they don't like?
- Technically, only members can kick people out using this policy.
- Anyone is empowered still to ask someone to not come back until next Tuesday's meeting, even without this policy, so it will probably not be exploited more than the current unofficial policy.
- We should add the definition of "sexual harassment" to the policy, because some people will not be clear on what that means.
- Can we add this as a hyperlink?
- There are some examples & clarification in the policy already.
- Basic civility should be used by people in the space.
- People who want to tell potentially offensive jokes should probably ask the crowd first before they tell them. (Just a suggestion for behavior, not that this should go into the policy.)
- Bystanders or witnesses are not targets for the policy. If someone witnesses an event but does not intervene for any reason (they are scared, it is dangerous, they are not sure if they should), they are not going to be reprimanded as a harasser.
- Last-minute concerns with being too specific instead of having a general policy.
- Would anyone block the proposal as it stands?
- Monad will block because it is automatic exlusion on accusation, where a person must return to a Tuesday meeting to GET permission to return rather than a consensus item to exclude them. People should be mediated
- People who are being harassed should not have to sit down with their harasser and be mediated.
- Mediators don't have to have both people in the same room.
- It is the same process we have for already asking people to not come back except to Tuesday meetings if they are behaving badly or violently.
- Monad: There needs to be a fact-finding process.
- Attempts to clarify which parts of the policy he doesn't like.
- Monad: The first sentence is fine. .... The rest of it is just stupid to me.
- Would anyone block the proposal as it stands?
- Chris, who was previously banned, returned to the meeting to discuss his return, but interrupted the meeting continuously until we had to pause the discussion to ask him to leave.
- Now we're back in session!
- Proposal that we create a mediation task force which can address these problems, when people are accused of harassment and expelled but want to return.
- Proposal that we approve the policy but pay close attention for abuse.
- Proposal that we implement this policy for a trial period and re-visit during the third week of January. - Monad would not block this.
- CONSENSED, with the addition that it will be up for review again the THIRD WEEK OF JANUARY 2014.
- Proposal to "modify open hours so that nights are open-access to Members and to guests of any sponsoring Member also present in the space".
- Problem: Midnight to eight there are usually no capital M Members in the space, but other people who are heavily invested in the space are. Can there be allowances made?
- Intention is to reduce the amount of "living at Noisebridge".
- It is proposed to modify the text slightly: "From 23:00 on, Noisebridge is open-access only to Members, guests of any sponsoring Member also present in the space, and anyone with an entry in the membership binder signed by two Members"
- Let us move this discussion to next week for further discussion. It warrants more attention & discussion and it is past 22:30 now.
(Add any new items for consensus to the Current Consensus Items page.)
[NOTE: SWITCH TO DRU BYRNE AS NOTETAKER.]
Not a consensus proposal, discussion items. JC Speaking abstractly to adam: several conversations involveing adam, re: him creating conflict, giving him a chance to respond, shed clarity &&. -He cannot respond to vaugeness
Jenn spoke about how adam publically chastised rob about an arduino that was left out. Did he trhreaten to rape someone? -No -Did he punch someone in the head? -He did, says rob. He was pretending to film Russ, After asking him to stop pointintg the camera at him, Russ went to look at the camera to see if there was actually film in it. Adam started piunching him in the throat, Russ saying "what are you doing, I'm not hitting you"
Pidgeon: Adam said to Rob: "I'm going to rape you, spread your cheeks" Rob only remembers hearing the first part of that. Later: Rayc: it was said with a very aggressive, firm, tone, Rayc placed the joke/serious probability at 75/25, and brushed it off. Dan Shut down? Rayc, yes, shut down. Pidgeon feels more comfortable speaking out about this in the future due to the recently passed policy.
Rob turned off a washing machine b/c he mistakenly thought it was leaking water, expereienced yelling from Adam about the issue. When Rayc was looking at a educational video, it came on the loudspeakers loud and they turned it down, this woke up Adam, Adam turned off the amp, then they turned it back on(it was on the projector)
Should this be broken up? Adam says he was defending himself. He explained was testing turning the flash on and off. Rayc interrupts: this conversation happened after the hitting
James: Hitting should not happen in noisebridge, did you hit him? Adam: yes, he had grabbed my hand onto the camera, cut his hand on the camera, I responded by hitting him.
Kevin: several stories about Adam becoming violent in noisebridge, this is not appropriate James: not appropriate
Pidgeon: He has too much power here; it is why I was afraid to say something; he's a lot bigger than me.
Nick: Adam, you know I think you are awesome, but after hearing these, I'm relucatnat to say something, but I feel like I have to say this in fairness: If someone is taking pictures of you like this (aggresively mocks cameras), then they can ask you to stop. Hitting them was over the top, harrassment.
To clarify, are there two instances? If there is much, much more. with two instances... the rayc threat was it out of the blue? Rayc, I don't know for sure.
Drew: We can jury-rig the resolution to this to match our harrasment policy
Rayc: He ignored stretches of time in which people asked him to leave and he didn't
James: this seems inappropriate, a danger to the space, it is violence, which alone is a huge huge problem; it certainly makes me feel unsafe.
James, this was when you were docent-ing the space?
Adam: no, earlier than that.
James, lack of remorse, pattern of conversation is itself worrying
Dan: credible threat? How are you sensitive about this? Holy shit, are you really that stupid? I know that is rude, but please explain yourself.
Adam, I'd like to know what motivations people thought I had
Andrew: it was about property rights, he did explain that he was testing the flash before Ross grabbed the camera, I didn't see the hand grab, but if I was to be asked what the motivation was, based on what he said afterwards, it was security of property.
Rayc: This is what I rememeber, that you said it was about property, not bodily harm; please go and don't come back
Kevin: clearly people think you should leave. If you want a forum to discuss that more, the tuesday meeting is the appropriate forum. There are clear documentation of physical violence, though there is not a proposal to ban you to be consensed on this week, I'd suggest you leave and not come back in the interim.
Dan: this is serious
Adam leaves, understanding he is not to come back until Tuesday's meeting.
Russel Drew: lots of people trusted him, lots...
but then after he left with "his equipment", we noticed a lot was missing.
Many, many stories came out about stuff missing around him, him having the items later. He is probably not coming back, what do we do? Nick: Zack's phone was next to Russel's rig, went missing (and vaughn saw him flashing it later), also other things that went missing. Rayc: stop people from having computers as "their own" in noisebridge, other policies, maybe also testing for hacking or membership sponsorship -This may not be sufficient, since a presence at night hasn't stopped this. -Been coming here for years, used to be a much more positive experience -Having been homeless, seeing people from that community in the space is not something to judge, but con-artists do live among them
- Chris returned to discuss his returning, but he was removed from the space for interrupting other discussions and disrupting the meeting. No other items were put up for discussion.
- List of names and short summary. For bonus points, link wiki user pages.
Now that the meeting is over, don't forget to post the meeting notes to the wiki and e-mail the discussion list with a short summary.