Hello,
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I have been very ill and in
quite a lot of pain.
First, I want to address the misinformation that is being shared out by
Eric.
During the vote it was delegates only who were in the room. This means that
the list Eric sent out of people were not in the room at the time of the
vote for Jake. However, Eric was in the room when the vote happened as a
delegate. Why Eric didn't raise their voice then but can do so here is
unknown to me. And how he can target Jamal without including him in the
conversation is troubling. However, this seems to be a repeating issue. A
few weeks ago during a sudoroom meeting I was sent a message to ask Pallavi
to leave our SudoRoom meeting. This message made me feel uncomfortable, but
still I shared the request, and I regret that. That message was sent to me
by Eric who was sitting at the same table as me, yet once again was unable
to use his own voice. In SudoRoom right now we have a weak delegate who
cannot use their own voice in meetings. That delegate is Eric. This is not
because they are being silenced, but because they would rather cause issues
and make puppets of others. I also personally see the stance being taken
towards Paige as retaliatory and asking Paige to step down is deeply
concerning. It is the exact kind of silencing of dissent that so many of
the voices in this email thread seem to be so worried about. As well, Jamal
did not dictate any letter, while the letter was being written me and Jamal
went out and grabbed dinner. We weren't even in the same building. And
finally, the request was not to keep the information secret from Jake. It
was to wait until he received the letter before discussing it with him.
This way it could have been clearly addressed there, and if there were
questions they could be brought to Jamal.
Next, voting by consensus-minus one was decided unanimously by all
delegates involved to make decisions during this meeting and move forward.
This meeting was meant to address the accountability of Omni, and the due
process of this meeting was decided unanimously by all delegates present.
It is my understanding that even within sudoroom the vote to remove a
member is the same, consensus-minus one. This process was meant to add
accountability to the actions that have been taken by people within our
space, and I doubt it will be the last it is used.
My own interactions with Jake have been predominantly kind, however I have
seen evidence and been told stories that deeply bother me. I can no longer
defend Jake for the actions he has taken in our space. As a friend I wish
Jake would have respected the decision and tried talking to Jamal as
specified in the letter. Instead, I was told by several others before the
letter was sent out that Jake knew about the ban already. A violation of
trust taken in bad faith. To say Jake was "harshly convicted" when they are
being invited back into the space after taking actions towards restorative
justice that they rightfully should take to address the accountability for
their own actions is quite simply absurd. And I would also like to point
out that the collective with the most attending members was in
fact SudoRoom. To represent this as anything else is a lie.
Now that the misinformation shared here has been addressed, I want to move
on to the discussions in this thread. I am deeply bothered by the racism in
this thread, and I am deeply bothered that our emails continue to look more
akin to Twitter with personal attacks and just plain old nastiness. I was
your delegate for several months and many of the names on this thread I
have never heard of, and some have even requested to continue to not be
involved in meetings and keeping things to these emails. Do not make the
requests and assumptions you are making without involvement within our
space. Show up to our meetings and use your voice. Speak with us. The
tensions of racism, transphobia, and misogyny are already growing enough
without input from people who are not even here.
This petty infighting must stop. I am deeply disappointed by the many
members here who have chosen to act in nasty and misleading ways.
Let us focus on the true issue at hand. Omni is in deep shit. It has been
poorly mismanaged and we are here after 2 year long extensions for our
great big ol' loan with very little money and very little ways to change
that. Jamal as an ED has given us an option to save Omni without requesting
outside involvement. The delegates and those interested in making changes
are exploring and making progress on our different options. Most of our
meeting this weekend was making that progress and we all left with so much
hope for our future as a collective of collectives. I believe in Jamal, and
I believe that we can save Omni Commons by working together for a better
future.
-Jems
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 8:15 PM E via sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org>
wrote:
*I have deep reservations about the actions taken at yesterday's
“retreat.” I informed my co-delegate that I would be delayed by one hour
and ultimately arrived at the meeting at approximately 3:30pm. Jamal,
Angela, Jemma, Anwar, Silver, Patrik, Yar, Paige, Toan, and John were there
in person. Our newly hired facilitator, Jamal, was dictating the above
letter to Paige. Jake was not present. I was told that before I arrived,
Jamal had called a vote on what accountability measure would be suitable to
address “the Jake problem.” During this vote, delegates John (LL), Patrik
(CCL), Paige (SR), and Natalie (SB) voted in favor of inflicting this
punishment and Toan (FNB) blocked the measure. Toan’s block was overruled
and the issue was then passed by consensus-minus one. Paige did not consult
with or inform me that this vote was taking place. Jamal asked me to keep
this information secret from Jake. I found this request objectionable as
this was allegedly meant to be an open meeting.The meeting notes on the
wiki say barely anything about how and why this decision was reached. Jake
was tried, convicted, and harshly sentenced - in absence - without a chance
to hear any charges, defend himself or plead his case. Abandoning due
process is not restorative in any way - it’s shameful - it makes the
meeting seem less about accountability and more about silencing
dissent. When I consulted with my co-delegate after the meeting, I asked
if they believed that they had voted in line with the wishes of our
collective - they acknowledged that they had not done so and would
understand if they were asked to step down from the position. I understand
that Paige was under a lot of pressure and clearly cares deeply about our
community. I have great esteem for Paige and appreciation for much of the
work they’ve done in our space, however, it looks like the meeting may have
escalated more quickly than anyone could have expected. When I asked if it
was possible to appeal this judgment I was directed to consult with Jamal.I
call upon all people of sudoroom who share my fondness for due process and
distaste for secret trials to object by responding to this thread and
making your views clear. Last night, judgment was passed against one of our
members without that person even being present, and fundamental structural
changes were made to our organization without consultation of the general
membership. -EricSudoroom Co-delegate*
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/