Meeting Notes 2011 04 26 - Revision history

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T05:03:39Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:03, 26 April 2011
Line 235:		Line 235:

	- Discussion proposal: Create guidelines at the next meeting for how to respond to problematic behavior. For potential consensus on May 10.		- Discussion proposal: Create guidelines at the next meeting for how to respond to problematic behavior. For potential consensus on May 10.

			- Maybe we should tell the people involved in the previous ban that they have used up their ban quota?

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:58:48Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 26 April 2011
Line 231:		Line 231:

	- Creating a list of guidelines for how to respond to problematic behavior and then consensing on these items?		- Creating a list of guidelines for how to respond to problematic behavior and then consensing on these items?

			- We could create guidelines for how to hit on people in a socially accepted way? (for discussion)

			- Discussion proposal: Create guidelines at the next meeting for how to respond to problematic behavior. For potential consensus on May 10.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:56:24Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 26 April 2011
Line 205:		Line 205:

	- There are lots of parts of the process that happened and some were OK but others might have been out of order. It would be useful to have an actual process where people know that there's something they can do, e.g. telling a designated person, like a sexual harassment counselor or someone who would be in a position to notice that there is a widespread or serious problem with a particular person. We got to the point we did and so people felt that it was important for him to leave, but there was debate about why it was permanent rather than temporary and whether there could have been a way to de-escalate so that people can still feel safe. People appreciate that the community is concerned with harassment complaints and takes them seriously. We should want to figure out a way to keep this sensibility while having a way to de-escalate situations when possible.		- There are lots of parts of the process that happened and some were OK but others might have been out of order. It would be useful to have an actual process where people know that there's something they can do, e.g. telling a designated person, like a sexual harassment counselor or someone who would be in a position to notice that there is a widespread or serious problem with a particular person. We got to the point we did and so people felt that it was important for him to leave, but there was debate about why it was permanent rather than temporary and whether there could have been a way to de-escalate so that people can still feel safe. People appreciate that the community is concerned with harassment complaints and takes them seriously. We should want to figure out a way to keep this sensibility while having a way to de-escalate situations when possible.

			- Some process actually happened and seemed to work. But one reason that we're talking about this now is the doocracy issue because we're not sure exactly how appropriate we feel that was in retrospect. Whether it was a bad idea.

			- The doocracy thing was actually OK but it was sent in considerable haste and should have been slept on. And then still happened, but after being slept on.

			- People came to a meeting who were supposed to mediate... but then they decided that they wanted to censure instead... ?

			- In the past Noisebridge successfully had personal confrontations with a neutral mediator. This has actually happened and has actually worked. People have been willing and able to be neutral mediators and this has happened. We were going to use this process in this case too but then we discovered that there were a group that had already performed the ban before the mediation happened.

			- There were apparently three different bans or ban processes that happened! Some of them foreclosed others, such as the use of a mediation process.

			- Concerns: (1) The doocratic e-mail was set in haste. (2) The ban began immediately with no warning so the police ended up getting called. Possibly the person who was banned didn't even know about it! (Debate about whether this is true.) ...

			- People who were involved have chosen not to come to this meeting to talk about it. They might only come if there were a consensus item.

			- "Kick not ban"?

			- A list of suggestions to use when people have problems with someone in the space?

			- Establish a team of volunteer moderators?

			- Next week we will discuss consensing on some of these ideas?

			- This is too vague. We should have a specific item about what happened.

			- Creating a list of guidelines for how to respond to problematic behavior and then consensing on these items?

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:49:06Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 26 April 2011
Line 204:		Line 204:
	- Perhaps anyone can /kick but individuals can't /ban without the consensus process.		- Perhaps anyone can /kick but individuals can't /ban without the consensus process.

	- There are lots of parts of the process that happened and some were OK but others might have been out of order. It would be useful to have an actual process where people know that there's something they can do, e.g. telling a designated person, like a sexual harassment counselor or someone who would be in a position to notice that there is a widespread or serious problem with a particular person. We got to the point we did and so people felt that it was important for him to leave, but there was debate about why it was permanent rather than temporary and whether there could have been a way to de-escalate so that people can still feel safe.		- There are lots of parts of the process that happened and some were OK but others might have been out of order. It would be useful to have an actual process where people know that there's something they can do, e.g. telling a designated person, like a sexual harassment counselor or someone who would be in a position to notice that there is a widespread or serious problem with a particular person. We got to the point we did and so people felt that it was important for him to leave, but there was debate about why it was permanent rather than temporary and whether there could have been a way to de-escalate so that people can still feel safe. People appreciate that the community is concerned with harassment complaints and takes them seriously. We should want to figure out a way to keep this sensibility while having a way to de-escalate situations when possible.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:48:18Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 26 April 2011
Line 203:		Line 203:

	- Perhaps anyone can /kick but individuals can't /ban without the consensus process.		- Perhaps anyone can /kick but individuals can't /ban without the consensus process.

			- There are lots of parts of the process that happened and some were OK but others might have been out of order. It would be useful to have an actual process where people know that there's something they can do, e.g. telling a designated person, like a sexual harassment counselor or someone who would be in a position to notice that there is a widespread or serious problem with a particular person. We got to the point we did and so people felt that it was important for him to leave, but there was debate about why it was permanent rather than temporary and whether there could have been a way to de-escalate so that people can still feel safe.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:45:59Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 26 April 2011
Line 181:		Line 181:

	- At the doocratic meeting, there was a proxy for someone who felt very personally threatened. After that, more evidence was brought to light. So the evidence came to light in that conversation in response to people choosing to describe or reveal their own experiences which they had not previously shared with the community.		- At the doocratic meeting, there was a proxy for someone who felt very personally threatened. After that, more evidence was brought to light. So the evidence came to light in that conversation in response to people choosing to describe or reveal their own experiences which they had not previously shared with the community.

			- We don't need to revisit the consensus itself. It was a consensus according to Noisebridge's norms. The thing that needs to be discussed, if anything, is what happened before that consensus, in terms of process and doocracy.

			Q. Do we think it's viable to ban people from the space without prior consensus? If we think that we need prior consensus then it's going to have to be very slow. If we don't think that it requires consensus, then what does it require and what kind of review can we expect to happen afterward?

			A. If there's a consensus item passed that gives the board the authority to call the police to enforce it... because the police would want a particular point of contact telling them that the space has banned someone.

			- But it's already possible for anyone to call the police!

			- I worked in a large bureaucratic organization that had many policies, including equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies. They designated people in every location as EEO counselors, who were, among other things, empowered to receive complaints about harassment and then to process those complaints. If people have complaints about someone over a long period of time but they don't get processed for that long period of time, then the complaints apparently aren't being given to the right people to act on. When an EEO counselor gets a complaint, they're trained to act as impartially as possible in response to the complaint, by not taking anyone's side, to the best of their ability. They try to increase everyone's confidence that any complaint will be handled in a fair way.

			- It should be acceptable for individual members to doocratically act people to leave at the moment, but they shouldn't be acting as if they have the authority to permanently ban someone.

			Q. So they can /kick but they can't /ban?

			A. Right!

			Q. What kind of authority do they need in order to /kickban?

			A. ...

			- Perhaps anyone can /kick but individuals can't /ban without the consensus process.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:38:03Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 26 April 2011
Line 178:		Line 178:
	- We should actually be willing to look in public at what people did in kicking this person out and discuss whether it was actually OK or not. These decisions had a huge effect in determining the direction of things.		- We should actually be willing to look in public at what people did in kicking this person out and discuss whether it was actually OK or not. These decisions had a huge effect in determining the direction of things.

	- There are distinct Noisebridge cultures, e.g. between the IRC channel or the general meeting. The IRC channel is more caustic and confrontational and they had previously decided that this person ought to be banned. This culture seemed to leak over into the general community over time.		- There are distinct Noisebridge cultures, e.g. between the IRC channel or the general meeting. The IRC channel is more caustic and confrontational and they had previously decided that this person ought to be banned. This culture seemed to leak over into the general community over time. In this case things built up over time with generalized sentiment against him until we felt that we had created enough evidence.

			- At the doocratic meeting, there was a proxy for someone who felt very personally threatened. After that, more evidence was brought to light. So the evidence came to light in that conversation in response to people choosing to describe or reveal their own experiences which they had not previously shared with the community.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:36:28Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 26 April 2011
Line 175:		Line 175:

	- This is not actually the first time that we have thrown someone out of Noisebridge. In the past it has happened because someone who appeared authoritative, such as a long-time, early member, responded by personally asking someone to leave the space. This works because we have a distinction between people who are members of the community, members of Noisebridge, etc. People who have been thrown out have been not members of the community. In the most recent case the difficulty was that the person who was banned was actually a member of the community. So it was difficult because we were ejecting someone who was "one of us" rather than just having a stranger or non-community member acting badly.		- This is not actually the first time that we have thrown someone out of Noisebridge. In the past it has happened because someone who appeared authoritative, such as a long-time, early member, responded by personally asking someone to leave the space. This works because we have a distinction between people who are members of the community, members of Noisebridge, etc. People who have been thrown out have been not members of the community. In the most recent case the difficulty was that the person who was banned was actually a member of the community. So it was difficult because we were ejecting someone who was "one of us" rather than just having a stranger or non-community member acting badly.

			- We should actually be willing to look in public at what people did in kicking this person out and discuss whether it was actually OK or not. These decisions had a huge effect in determining the direction of things.

			- There are distinct Noisebridge cultures, e.g. between the IRC channel or the general meeting. The IRC channel is more caustic and confrontational and they had previously decided that this person ought to be banned. This culture seemed to leak over into the general community over time.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:33:23Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 26 April 2011
Line 174:		Line 174:
	- This last process seems to have developed very slowly but then come a head very quickly.		- This last process seems to have developed very slowly but then come a head very quickly.

	- This is not actually the first time that we have thrown someone out of Noisebridge. In the past it has happened because someone who appeared authoritative, such as a long-time, early member, responded by personally asking someone to leave the space.		- This is not actually the first time that we have thrown someone out of Noisebridge. In the past it has happened because someone who appeared authoritative, such as a long-time, early member, responded by personally asking someone to leave the space. This works because we have a distinction between people who are members of the community, members of Noisebridge, etc. People who have been thrown out have been not members of the community. In the most recent case the difficulty was that the person who was banned was actually a member of the community. So it was difficult because we were ejecting someone who was "one of us" rather than just having a stranger or non-community member acting badly.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===

Schoen: /* Banning discussion */

2011-04-27T04:32:18Z

Banning discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 26 April 2011
Line 169:		Line 169:

	- Could we have more discussion about what's going on so that situations don't develop in secret and then appear to get "sprung" on the community in a way that appears sudden to people who weren't involved?		- Could we have more discussion about what's going on so that situations don't develop in secret and then appear to get "sprung" on the community in a way that appears sudden to people who weren't involved?

			- Suppose that someone presents evidence that someone is making the space a hostile environment for other people. If it takes a week or two to ban that person, this seems glacially slow because it's not OK for it to take weeks to change the situation so that the space is no longer a hostile environment. Ejecting someone from the space should not require consensus ahead of time. The consensus process can evaluate whether the people who did eject someone have done something wrong by ejecting that person. It can do this after the fact.

			- This last process seems to have developed very slowly but then come a head very quickly.

			- This is not actually the first time that we have thrown someone out of Noisebridge. In the past it has happened because someone who appeared authoritative, such as a long-time, early member, responded by personally asking someone to leave the space.

	=== End of Meeting ===		=== End of Meeting ===