31 Oct
31 Oct
2:24 a.m.
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
----
On 13-10-31-Thu 2:13 AM, Marc Juul wrote:
We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
2:54 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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
3:08 a.m.
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. 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(a)att.net <mailto: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
7:19 a.m.
Banning someone for being annoying is something you guys will probably have
to do often and you should definitely not do it.
As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their commitment to
come one come all. "All" is not a great group, necessarily. If you are
trying to build a club that is self-governing, it has to have people in it
whose judgment you trust. There's nothing wrong with that I think.
On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne 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. 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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'g2g-public01(a)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
7:47 a.m.
I wholeheartedly 2nd, 3rd the sentiment and suggestion to have a conversation (via email
if not IRL) with Giovanni to tame his exuberance and use the list more judiciously.
"Banning" without first taking initiative to educate and include in
understanding expecte practices is straight-up draconian -- eliminating not solving the
problem.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Banning someone for being annoying is something you
guys will probably have
to do often and you should definitely not do it.
As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their commitment to
come one come all. "All" is not a great group, necessarily. If you are
trying to build a club that is self-governing, it has to have people in it
whose judgment you trust. There's nothing wrong with that I think.
On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne 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. 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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'g2g-public01(a)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
>
>
>
8:09 a.m.
I'll 4th & 5th that.
I was trying to direct Giovanni's enthusiasm to be most useful on the Sudo-radio list.
I still think that would be the most appropriate move.
It is in fact true that this is a huge and awesome open window in spectrum allocation and
it would be a shame to miss it. How Giovanni has tried to go about convincing everyone of
that has clearly been counter-productive. His promise to put together a brief note about
how to register before Nov. 14 and what it takes to do that - would be very useful
information.
I dare say though that if annoying is a criteria for being banned on this list - as a
subjective matter many would be on thin ice. (No offense. Myself included.)
I think that ad hoc unilateral banning is an overextension of the individual power any
Sudo-er should have. Something that was mentioned could justify removal from the Board. I
would suggest we have more than one person with the power to ban people from our mailing
list. And that those people be charged with doing do according to some predictable and
ascertainable policy.
sent from eddan.com
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Danny
Spitzberg" <stationaery(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I wholeheartedly 2nd, 3rd the sentiment and suggestion to have a conversation (via email
if not IRL) with Giovanni to tame his exuberance and use the list more judiciously.
"Banning" without first taking initiative to educate and include in
understanding expecte practices is straight-up draconian -- eliminating not solving the
problem.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss
<sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Banning someone for being annoying is something you guys will probably have to do often
and you should definitely not do it.
As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their commitment to come one come
all. "All" is not a great group, necessarily. If you are trying to build a club
that is self-governing, it has to have people in it whose judgment you trust. There's
nothing wrong with that I think.
> On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne 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. 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(a)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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss 
8:23 a.m.
I don't know this situation too well, but I do have a few questions and
observations.
* Was this person warned and offered an opportunity to correct his behavior
before being banned?
* Is there a clear and clearly communicated path for him for becoming
unbanned in the future?
* Even if the ban is the right thing to do, an email subject line to a
public list stating that he has been banned could be taken as a very
hostile and damaging act. Could this have been done more quietly and
respectfully?
My experience with online community management and dynamics comes mostly
from Wikipedia. One thing I think Wikipedia really gets right, and which
has been inspiring to me, is to adhere as much as possible to the following:
* A ban is fundamentally considered protective, not punitive; therefore it
is typically time-limited, and will start off for a short duration and only
escalate if the undesirable behavior continutes.
I agree that this will probably not be the last time something like this
comes up. We should remember that the passion of Sudo Room members is one
of the community's strengths, and may not always be expressed in a neat and
tidy way.
Pete
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote:
I'll 4th & 5th that.
I was trying to direct Giovanni's enthusiasm to be most useful on the
Sudo-radio list. I still think that would be the most appropriate move.
It is in fact true that this is a huge and awesome open window in spectrum
allocation and it would be a shame to miss it. How Giovanni has tried to go
about convincing everyone of that has clearly been counter-productive. His
promise to put together a brief note about how to register before Nov. 14
and what it takes to do that - would be very useful information.
I dare say though that if annoying is a criteria for being banned on this
list - as a subjective matter many would be on thin ice. (No offense.
Myself included.)
I think that ad hoc unilateral banning is an overextension of the
individual power any Sudo-er should have. Something that was mentioned
could justify removal from the Board. I would suggest we have more than one
person with the power to ban people from our mailing list. And that those
people be charged with doing do according to some predictable and
ascertainable policy.
sent from eddan.com
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Danny Spitzberg" <stationaery(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I wholeheartedly 2nd, 3rd the sentiment and suggestion to have a
conversation (via email if not IRL) with Giovanni to tame his exuberance
and use the list more judiciously.
"Banning" without first taking initiative to educate and include in
understanding expecte practices is straight-up draconian -- eliminating not
solving the problem.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Banning someone for being annoying is something
you guys will probably
have to do often and you should definitely not do it.
As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their commitment to
come one come all. "All" is not a great group, necessarily. If you are
trying to build a club that is self-governing, it has to have people in it
whose judgment you trust. There's nothing wrong with that I think.
On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne 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. 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(a)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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
10:11 a.m.
Pete makes a number of good points, as do Eddan et. al.
But as for a temporary ban on Giovanni, no, not after the way this thing
played out so far, unless someone wants to make it a self-spiting irony
by banning him until 14 November (the FCC filing deadline).
This is about power and about consistency with principles, and this is
also about justice for individual members. The dysfunctional "come one,
come all" problem at NoiseBridge is a different issue for a different
discussion.
We've just had days of discussion about restraining Board members even
to the point where someone proposed not allowing them to post on other
public sites that they were on the Board, lest that be "mis-interpreted"
to mean that they have some kind of "authority."
Then _this_ happens.
Yes, running a listserv is a lot of work. Having legal responsibility
for a 501 nonprofit is a lot of work too, so what kinds of unilateral
powers shall Board members have?
List admins should be able to exercise unilateral power in emergencies,
such as overt spammers, threats and other overt criminal behavior, bot
attacks, etc. Beyond that, they should be expected to bring non-urgent
cases to some kind of collective process, same as anyone else.
And for all positions that have effective power, "authority" ought to be
defined to mean "delegated authority" including "not to exceed the
limits of the authority that is specifically delegated."
Unless there's more to the story than a handful of "annoying" posts to
the list, Giovanni deserves to be un-banned ASAP, also deserves an
apology from the group as a whole at the next meeting (collective power
= collective responsibility), and then anyone who has an issue with him
is welcome to use whatever collective processes exist to solve it.
-G
======
On 13-10-31-Thu 8:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
I don't know this situation too well, but I do
have a few questions
and observations.
* Was this person warned and offered an opportunity to correct his
behavior before being banned?
* Is there a clear and clearly communicated path for him for becoming
unbanned in the future?
* Even if the ban is the right thing to do, an email subject line to a
public list stating that he has been banned could be taken as a very
hostile and damaging act. Could this have been done more quietly and
respectfully?
My experience with online community management and dynamics comes
mostly from Wikipedia. One thing I think Wikipedia really gets right,
and which has been inspiring to me, is to adhere as much as possible
to the following:
* A ban is fundamentally considered protective, not punitive;
therefore it is typically time-limited, and will start off for a short
duration and only escalate if the undesirable behavior continutes.
I agree that this will probably not be the last time something like
this comes up. We should remember that the passion of Sudo Room
members is one of the community's strengths, and may not always be
expressed in a neat and tidy way.
Pete
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net
<mailto:eddan@clear.net>> wrote:
I'll 4th & 5th that.
I was trying to direct Giovanni's enthusiasm to be most useful on
the Sudo-radio list. I still think that would be the most
appropriate move.
It is in fact true that this is a huge and awesome open window in
spectrum allocation and it would be a shame to miss it. How
Giovanni has tried to go about convincing everyone of that has
clearly been counter-productive. His promise to put together a
brief note about how to register before Nov. 14 and what it takes
to do that - would be very useful information.
I dare say though that if annoying is a criteria for being banned
on this list - as a subjective matter many would be on thin ice.
(No offense. Myself included.)
I think that ad hoc unilateral banning is an overextension of the
individual power any Sudo-er should have. Something that was
mentioned could justify removal from the Board. I would suggest we
have more than one person with the power to ban people from our
mailing list. And that those people be charged with doing do
according to some predictable and ascertainable policy.
sent from eddan.com <http://eddan.com>
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Danny Spitzberg"
<stationaery(a)gmail.com <mailto:stationaery@gmail.com>> wrote:
I wholeheartedly 2nd, 3rd the sentiment and
suggestion to have a
conversation (via email if not IRL) with Giovanni to tame his
exuberance and use the list more judiciously.
"Banning" without first taking initiative to educate and include
in understanding expecte practices is straight-up draconian --
eliminating not solving the problem.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss
<sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com <mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com>> wrote:
Banning someone for being annoying is something you guys will
probably have to do often and you should definitely not do it.
As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their
commitment to come one come all. "All" is not a great group,
necessarily. If you are trying to build a club that is
self-governing, it has to have people in it whose judgment
you trust. There's nothing wrong with that I think.
On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne 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. 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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM,
GtwoG PublicOhOne
<g2g-public01(a)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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
12:28 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:08 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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(a)att.net>wrote;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
1:24 p.m.
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(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:08 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne
<g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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(a)att.net
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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
4073
days inactive
4073
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Danny Spitzberg -
Eddan Katz -
GtwoG PublicOhOne -
Marc Juul -
Matthew Senate -
Pete Forsyth -
Sonja Trauss