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@labitat.dk> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:08 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@att.net> 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@att.net> 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



_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss