[sudo-discuss] Re: Temporary Ban of Jake from Omni Commons (fwd)

I was also very surprised to learn how far and fast this escalated.I don't know if I'm in a position to fully defend Jake, I don't even know what he's accused of or what evidence was brought against him.  It's certainly possible he has done unsavory things, or that due to reasons of privacy for the victims, the allegations have not been published for all the email list to see.  But I believe in Innocent until proven guilty, or at the very least he should know the charges against him.I would also like to mention that Jake has been one of the most friendly faces to me in SudoRoom, and has been very helpful in my various projects.  I also see him as a fierce defender of SudoRoom and OmniCommons as a whole.  I may not always agree with him or his methods, but I believe that everything he does he does because he thinks it will benefit the community.Just my two cents, I hope it helps!Julie Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message --------From: E via sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> Date: 1/7/24 8:15 PM (GMT-08:00) To: sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org Subject: [sudo-discuss] Re: Temporary Ban of Jake from Omni Commons (fwd) 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