Difference between revisions of "Meeting Notes 2014-02-12"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meeting Notes 2014-02-12 (view source)

Revision as of 00:32, 20 February 2014

50 bytes added ,  00:32, 20 February 2014
m
→‎Consensus Items: change formatting for readability and deep-linking
(copied from pad)
 
m (→‎Consensus Items: change formatting for readability and deep-linking)
Line 62: Line 62:


==Consensus Items==
==Consensus Items==
* Proposal to ban ardeen
** https://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/2014-February/005374.html
** yar thinks ban sounds harsh - maybe temporary? 2 months?
** "To empower members to deal with problematic non-members, non-members  can be removed by a member who feels their behavior is problematic,  *unless* another member present in the space is willing to vouch for the  non-member as a guest. Non-members being asked to leave must be told  that they can further discuss the incident at a Wednesday meeting or on  the mailing list.  Non-members can use the space as much as they want when other members  are present, but cannot access the space when no members are there and  have to leave when the last member leaves."
** Ardeen is present and pleading forgiveness, but Marc still doesn't trust him
** Matt hadn't received an apology until now and is not happy. He finds "the whole narrative disrespectful". He'd rather things be about the community respecting each other and not about conflicts and bans. (?)
** Ardeen feels he tried to reach out and was treated with anger and vendetta
** yar hears "it's not about sleeping or breaking rules, it's about respect" but thinks the email seemed about exactly that
** conversation gets heated, yar imposes stack with 30 second time limit each
** voting
*** 6 votes for a permanent ban of ardeen
*** 1 against - ardeen himself
*** 5 abstaining
*** this is less than 2/3. motion fails.
** vote on a temporary one-month banning of ardeen
*** 12 for
*** 0 against
*** 2 abstains
*** motion passes. Matt notes that the Public School has voted to uphold our bans.
* proposal to ban sarah
** "She isn't here. Word she's left the city."
** "she's been sleeping here after being warned, and also knowingly ate my food."
** "she's had conflicts at Noisebridge and refused arbitration there, which is not a good sign"
** "I'd support this ban more if it were about violence or extreme disrespect"
** "We need a committee on social affairs"
** voting
*** 5 in favor
*** 0 against
*** 6 abstentions
*** motion seems to fail?
*** Feedback from abstainers:
**** Having a calm person unattached to the conflict to serve as ally for
**** Permanent bans pretty harsh - people can change
**** Homelessness is a transient condition
**** process is broken since abstentions and no-votes seemed to be equivalent here
**** Eliot suggests permanent bans be reserved for violent oppression, but supports long-term bans
*** "I will reach out to her and say she's not banned but she's not welcome and should come to a meeting"
*** JC offers mediation in future conflicts


* "sudo room resolves to allow the Internet Archive Federal Credit Union to make deposits."
=== Proposal to ban ardeen ===
** There are no objections. We all feel pretty good to be voting on this.
* https://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/2014-February/005374.html
* yar thinks ban sounds harsh - maybe temporary? 2 months?
* "To empower members to deal with problematic non-members, non-members  can be removed by a member who feels their behavior is problematic,  *unless* another member present in the space is willing to vouch for the  non-member as a guest. Non-members being asked to leave must be told  that they can further discuss the incident at a Wednesday meeting or on  the mailing list.  Non-members can use the space as much as they want when other members  are present, but cannot access the space when no members are there and  have to leave when the last member leaves."
* Ardeen is present and pleading forgiveness, but Marc still doesn't trust him
* Matt hadn't received an apology until now and is not happy. He finds "the whole narrative disrespectful". He'd rather things be about the community respecting each other and not about conflicts and bans. (?)
* Ardeen feels he tried to reach out and was treated with anger and vendetta
* yar hears "it's not about sleeping or breaking rules, it's about respect" but thinks the email seemed about exactly that
* conversation gets heated, yar imposes stack with 30 second time limit each
* voting
** 6 votes for a permanent ban of ardeen
** 1 against - ardeen himself
** 5 abstaining
** this is less than 2/3. motion fails.
* vote on a temporary one-month banning of ardeen
** 12 for
** 0 against
** 2 abstains
** motion passes. Matt notes that the Public School has voted to uphold our bans.


* Suggestion that we auto-ban anyone who has been banned by noisebridge unless at least one member objects. New bans to be adopted at each weekly meeting. - juul
=== proposal to ban sarah ===
** See https://noisebridge.net/86 for current Noisebridge bans
* "She isn't here. Word she's left the city."
** Matt suggests inserting a human approval method rather than auto-ban, citing Value # 5 of sudo room's Articles of Association:
* "she's been sleeping here after being warned, and also knowingly ate my food."
*** "Value human judgment over automation and efficiency."
* "she's had conflicts at Noisebridge and refused arbitration there, which is not a good sign"
** "Would this rule have solved problems in the past" "Yes" "yes" "yes" "YES!"
* "I'd support this ban more if it were about violence or extreme disrespect"
** "is the burden on individuals to monitor the noisebridge banlist in order to object in time?"
* "We need a committee on social affairs"
** "it literally just made the process easier with ardeen that public school had a similar vote on our banlist"
* voting
*** "I didn't actually feel good mentioning BAPS' policy so I don't think that's a point in favor"
** 5 in favor
** Brendan: "In considering banning individuals from sudo room, it is valid to take into consideration any bans from other communities."
** 0 against
** "I'd prioritize specific kinds of bans such as those involving sexual predators"
** 6 abstentions
*** DOES THIS WORK?? "Noisebridge bans can be given a temporary ban at sudo room by request of any member, to last until there is quorum to review the ban. Sudo room will consider all Noisebridge bans as potential bans at sudo room, going through the normal process"
** motion seems to fail?
** "There should be an opportunity to lift bans"
** Feedback from abstainers:
*** Having a calm person unattached to the conflict to serve as ally for
*** Permanent bans pretty harsh - people can change
*** Homelessness is a transient condition
*** process is broken since abstentions and no-votes seemed to be equivalent here
*** Eliot suggests permanent bans be reserved for violent oppression, but supports long-term bans
** "I will reach out to her and say she's not banned but she's not welcome and should come to a meeting"
** JC offers mediation in future conflicts


* Matt suggests a rule that our bureacracy can't be used against us:
=== "sudo room resolves to allow the Internet Archive Federal Credit Union to make deposits." ===
** "Value fairness and common sense over prolonged process and bureaucracy."
* There are no objections. We all feel pretty good to be voting on this.
** "I finds this unimplementable and a little ironic"
** "if you want that to change, develop a mentality for it, don't wait for bureaucracy to solve it"
** "can we move this onto next week's agenda?" [laughter]
*** "I propose this be highly prioritized to next week"
** "does anybody have a reason this should not be consensed to be in our articles?"
*** "I do. It's an awesome value, but just words."
**** That's sort of the point ^.^ it's a poem!
** No consensus yet, more workshopping.


* At the November 6, 2013 meeting, there was consensus that Marc Juul should be the sole founder of our IRC channel, freenode.#sudoroom - this was discussed on the mailing list, there have been no blocks or alternatives proposed. This meeting, with 16 people present, affirms that it has been solidly consensed on at this point. Sudoroom as an organization will now reach out to Freenode to make it happen.
=== noisebridge auto-bans ===
** Asked for objections four or five times. No objections. phew!
Suggestion that we auto-ban anyone who has been banned by noisebridge unless at least one member objects. New bans to be adopted at each weekly meeting. - juul
* See https://noisebridge.net/86 for current Noisebridge bans
* Matt suggests inserting a human approval method rather than auto-ban, citing Value # 5 of sudo room's Articles of Association:
** "Value human judgment over automation and efficiency."
* "Would this rule have solved problems in the past" "Yes" "yes" "yes" "YES!"
* "is the burden on individuals to monitor the noisebridge banlist in order to object in time?"
* "it literally just made the process easier with ardeen that public school had a similar vote on our banlist"
** "I didn't actually feel good mentioning BAPS' policy so I don't think that's a point in favor"
* Brendan: "In considering banning individuals from sudo room, it is valid to take into consideration any bans from other communities."
* "I'd prioritize specific kinds of bans such as those involving sexual predators"
** DOES THIS WORK?? "Noisebridge bans can be given a temporary ban at sudo room by request of any member, to last until there is quorum to review the ban. Sudo room will consider all Noisebridge bans as potential bans at sudo room, going through the normal process"
* "There should be an opportunity to lift bans"


* Juul suggests that we change the articles such that bans require 2/3 of the votes of present members, excluding abstainess.
=== bureaucracy rule ===
** "you should just use a normal voting process and not that weird process you just used"
Matt suggests a rule that our bureacracy can't be used against us:
** "can't consent on this now because the problem is deeper than this"
* "Value fairness and common sense over prolonged process and bureaucracy."
** "do i have to be a dues-paying member to vote?"
* "I finds this unimplementable and a little ironic"
* "if you want that to change, develop a mentality for it, don't wait for bureaucracy to solve it"
* "can we move this onto next week's agenda?" [laughter]
** "I propose this be highly prioritized to next week"
* "does anybody have a reason this should not be consensed to be in our articles?"
** "I do. It's an awesome value, but just words."
*** That's sort of the point ^.^ it's a poem!
* No consensus yet, more workshopping.
 
=== IRC ===
 
At the November 6, 2013 meeting, there was consensus that Marc Juul should be the sole founder of our IRC channel, freenode.#sudoroom - this was discussed on the mailing list, there have been no blocks or alternatives proposed. This meeting, with 16 people present, affirms that it has been solidly consensed on at this point. Sudoroom as an organization will now reach out to Freenode to make it happen.
* Asked for objections four or five times. No objections. phew!
 
=== consensus rule change ===
Juul suggests that we change the articles such that bans require 2/3 of the votes of present members, excluding abstainess.
* "you should just use a normal voting process and not that weird process you just used"
* "can't consent on this now because the problem is deeper than this"
* "do i have to be a dues-paying member to vote?"


==Conflict Resolution==
==Conflict Resolution==
Retrieved from "https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/7342"

Navigation menu