20 Jul
2016
20 Jul
'16
12:36 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I object that sub-section 3.2
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Ban#Section_3.2_Conflict_Resolution>
Conflict
Resolution has not been followed in the least.
If it had been followed, then there would have been a facilitator chosen *before
the meeting where a decision is made about my access*. This is plainly
indicated by this graphic on the wiki
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> and the text of that
section.
Had this been followed, I would have been notified of conflict before
judgement, and I would not have been subjected to treatment I received
tonight by the law abiding members of sudoroom. I should have been
notified by the facilitator as to the fact that I was involved in a
conflict before judgement. That did not happen.
Any member of any Omni collective can invoke an instant temporary safe
space ban and then subsequent mediation and/or meetings can decide if the
ban should be lifted or become permanent:
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy#4..E2.80.8E_.E2.80.8FConseq…
Yes you should have been informed that the safer space policy had been
invoked. That was a mistake. If any volunteers are available to act as
conflict steward and mediator then they will contact you. Note that in sudo
room articles are our guidelines and consensus can overrule any existing
rules including invoking/revoking bans. It looks to me like there has been
no meeting with enough members for quorum since this happened (can someone
verify or correct this if they attended recent meetings?). If this is
correct then you are temporarily banned based on the safer spaces policy
until mediation can conclude or a decision is made by a quorum of minimum
10 sudo room members. If there has been no consensus decision with quorum
then you are not banned from Noisebridge. I apologize for that statement (I
was not at that meeting and may have misinterpreted the wiki notes).
--
marc/juul