I think it is imperative that when Sudo has a meeting to discuss and/or vote on Matt's proposal that such a meeting be open o the public, at a convenient time and day, and that Elliot and witnesses to his violent behavior be present. Otherwise I would be unable to know if our policies are fair and just. joe On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Matthew Senate wrote: While I wasn't there for this latest instance, this is the second time in our new location (I was present the first time) and at least the fourth instance related to sudo room, of Elliot escalating a situation to a physical, even violent, response on his part. I am no longer willing to tolerate this behavior and continue to risk all the love, care, and work that goes into making all of omni commons, and each collective, a thriving and safer community and space. In sum, it seems evident that Elliot's continued involvement in omni commons is already a greater cost, and even greater potential risk, than a revocation of his privilege to use the space. I propose sudo room in particular revoke Elliot's non-member privilege to access the sudo room, and therefore the omni commons, until Elliot can provide the sudo room membership with tangible evidence of a new investment in the prevention of physical violence and marked improvement of his own behavior in this regard. // Matt _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

I disagree. (With very little stake in this specific discussion, but in these kinds of discussions in general.) I think that it is impossible to first discuss someone's violent behavior with them present. Many people may feel too intimidated to speak up, if the perpetrator of violence is present. Because of this, it is not "fair and just" to have the person accused of violence present at all discussions. After a discussion (to which the person accused of violence is not present) has been facilitated, it is more possible to facilitate a discussion with them present, in order to get "both sides." On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:06 PM, joseph liesner <blue393(a)lmi.net> wrote: _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss

What is most problematic for me is that there is so little daylight here. Elliot's name is used but all the references to repeated violence are a mystery to me. Will the Mediator and Steward process make important information available? I fully support Sudo and all members right to be safe in our space yet without more daylight in this matter than I have experienced in others at the Omni it feels like a comrade will just disappear. joe On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Eske Silver wrote: I agree that both/all side must be heard. I also agree that first, the community and witnesses must be on the same page about the *facts* of incidents, without pressure on witnesses, but in way that doesn't promote a closed bias. At one house I was involved ith, a list would be made, at the meeting withouth the individual, then each issue/incident was addressed with the individual present, so that each and every issue/incident was available for discussion/explanation/etc. We do already (or damn oughta) have precident for these interactions... ~ Korl 500px.com/eske [1] 510.689.4484 On Jan 12, 2015 3:19 PM, "Ryan" <yandoryn(a)gmail.com> wrote: I disagree. (With very little stake in this specific discussion, but in these kinds of discussions in general.) I think that it is impossible to first discuss someone's violent behavior with them present. Many people may feel too intimidated to speak up, if the perpetrator of violence is present. Because of this, it is not "fair and just" to have the person accused of violence present at all discussions. After a discussion (to which the person accused of violence is not present) has been facilitated, it is more possible to facilitate a discussion with them present, in order to get "both sides." On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:06 PM, joseph liesner <blue393(a)lmi.net> wrote: I think it is imperative that when Sudo has a meeting to discuss and/or vote on Matt's proposal that such a meeting be open o the public, at a convenient time and day, and that Elliot and witnesses to his violent behavior be present. Otherwise I would be unable to know if our policies are fair and just. joe On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Matthew Senate wrote: While I wasn't there for this latest instance, this is the second time in our new location (I was present the first time) and at least the fourth instance related to sudo room, of Elliot escalating a situation to a physical, even violent, response on his part. I am no longer willing to tolerate this behavior and continue to risk all the love, care, and work that goes into making all of omni commons, and each collective, a thriving and safer community and space. In sum, it seems evident that Elliot's continued involvement in omni commons is already a greater cost, and even greater potential risk, than a revocation of his privilege to use the space. I propose sudo room in particular revoke Elliot's non-member privilege to access the sudo room, and therefore the omni commons, until Elliot can provide the sudo room membership with tangible evidence of a new investment in the prevention of physical violence and marked improvement of his own behavior in this regard. // Matt _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss [2] _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [3]