31 Oct
2013
31 Oct
'13
1:24 p.m.
I would extrapolate Marc's points to say:
It is the responsibilities of all members and anyone supportive of sudo
room as an Association, bound by these articles
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association, to act in good faith,
fairness, and transparency as individuals of a collective. We have a
responsibility to each other, and I personally encourage folks to take
action in accordance with our values, standards, cultural protocols, and
ultimately fairness in order for the collective to function well. To me,
this is the value of do-ocracy. We have to remain diligent in being
responsible, but not to stagnate, if possible.
// Matt
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:08 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne
<g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;wrote:
IMHO that seems excessively harsh. Banning someone from the list is
similar enough to banning them from the space, that it seems to me such
things entail a collective action by the community rather than an
administrative action or unilateral action by e.g. a list admin or someone
with keys to the door.
I strongly disagree. One of the the ways that sudo room gets stuff done is
by delegating certain tasks to trusted individuals. This ban was not
enacted lightly or without the input of several others who were in sudo
room at the time. I think it is a mistake to demand that all actions be put
to group consensus.
Comparing a ban from the list to a ban from the space is just silly.
Giovanni is free to show up and use the space, and anyone is free to come
to the meeting and argue for his unbanning (including Giovanni himself) and
attempt to implement a process for future bans.
The people who help run sudo room have to sometimes deal with problematic
individuals and we are empowered to do so.
If you want to participate in running sudo room, I suggest you show up and
roll up your sleeves. We have enough people who only ever talk and never do.
--
Marc
Spambots and overt criminals are one thing, but
people who are merely
annoying in some way are another.
Really: With all the talk about anarcho-this and collectivist-that and
consensus-the-other-thing, seems to me that unilaterally banning someone
for being merely annoying is a pretty major contradiction to core
principles.
If you or someone else wants to ban someone from the list or the space,
aside from emergencies such as bots and criminals, there are
dispute-resolution processes in place for that.
So I'm going to stick my neck out and ask that you reinstate him on the
list, and initiate the use of whatever collective processes exist for
resolving the issues you have with him.
-G
=====
On 13-10-31-Thu 2:54 AM, Marc Juul wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
wrote:
What happened? I thought the "john re" address had been captured or
spoofed by a spammer, but "giovanni_re" was a legit user, most recently
discussing the FCC application. Did the _giovanni_re" identity turn out to
be some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing? -G
He was banned for spamming the list about the FCC thing. Nine emails in
nine different threads over the course of a few hours about a project that
he has stated that he himself is not willing to work on. That is not
reasonable. He also showed up for the sudo room and counter culture labs
meetings and took an unreasonable amount of the community's time trying to
push this project onto others. It appears that he has been doing similar
things at noisebridge and other tech groups in the bay area.
In addition: Starting and running an LPFM station is no minor
undertaking, and Giovanni has continued his attempts to push this on people
even in the face of little interest. This might have all been fine if he
was actually spearheading the project, but he is not.
--
Marc