On Monday, March 10, 2014 10:35:13 Becca Salchak wrote: > I don't see a problem with asking people not to do things. I don't see why > before this weeks meeting we send out a message saying something along the > lines of if you are going to have a beer out two save it for after the > meeting . and if you choose to drink during the meeting that is un > excellent to the rest of the hakkers in the meeting. Hopefully people > respect that. Which I feel like most of our regulars will. And also state > that it is un excellent to operate the heavy duty tools while drinking
I think its a bit rash to say "Don't drink during our meetings". It implies that we're all raging alcoholics. It also was the first incident in the last two years. Are we going to let one bad experience ruin it for everyone to the point that we need to chide the whole community by insisting that they're incapable of knowing when to stop drinking? I've added this to the community standards: "Use some common sense when working with our nice toys. If you're incapable of good control of yourself (i.e. drunk, high, whatever), you probably shouldn't be using circular saws." https://synhak.org/wiki/Community_Standards Heck, the weekly meeting page already addresses the last incident as part of the instructions, assuming we're talking about Matt having a bit too much to drink. "Remain respectful of other participants." Frankly I don't care how blitzed out of their gourd someone is. If they're keeping to themselves and not causing a ruckus, they're always welcome to sit and listen. The whole thing was a mess, but lets deal with these things in a kind and gentle manner. He already apologized profusely to everyone and explained his course of action involving staying away from the space for a bit to let the situation cool down. Is that not enough? Should we continue to punish and shame? > > On Mar 10, 2014 9:44 AM, "Torrie Fischer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, March 10, 2014 07:44:07 Omar Rassi wrote: > > > Okay, so what this really sounds like is a problem between a few > > > individuals about an isolated instant involving one person. This can be > > > resolved individually with mediation (if necessary)instead of with > > > legislation. Is this now grounds for policy creation? If so, I'd like to > > > outline a few other points that could fall in this realm: > > > > > > 1: The parking lot across the street is private parking and does not > > > > belong > > > > > to Synhak. People who park there but are not authorized to do so may be > > > towed. Do we need to have a parking policy now? > > > > > > 2: The military recruiting office is 50ft from our door, there is no > > > smoking within 50ft of a government building. Do we need designated > > > > smoking > > > > > areas? > > > > > > 3: I've seen people pull out their personal laptops to show me something > > > and in the background I see a torrent application running. They could be > > > downloading cracked operating systems, music, movies, TV shows (all of > > > which I've heard discussed at Synhak) which is illegal and logged on our > > > > ip > > > > > address. Do we need an acceptable use policy to use our internet access? > > > > > > Devin, > > > > > > I'm not trying to side-step your suggestion, I'm not even against the > > > > idea > > > > > of saying we don't condone that type of thing (because, really, I don't > > > condone it so long as it remains against the law). What you're > > > suggestion > > > is indicative of the fact that there is no formal statement from Synhak > > > > on > > > > > the subject. I'm trying to come up with a resolution that doesn't come > > > > off > > > > > as "Synhak has a substance problem" (because Synhak does NOT), that > > > protects the organization's interest, and requires little effort to > > > implement or the need to go back and change as society changes. What I > > > don't want is to foster a climate where if a person has a problem with > > > something or someone, that they point their finger and say "You fix it." > > > > It > > > > > is the antithesis of a hackerspace. Individual responsibility and > > > > community > > > > > are paramount at Synhak and using the board to address minor issues > > > > between > > > > > a few individuals with general legislation is a detriment to future of > > > > how > > > > > Synhak is governed/operates. The only time the police should ever be > > > involved at Synhak is when someone refuses to leave when asked by a > > > Champion or other officer. > > > > Since the dawn of time, we've all stressed that the board exists simply so > > that SYNHAK, Inc exists as a legal entity in the eyes of the State of > > Ohio. > > The Membership has always been in charge. > > > > I mean, whats the point of having weekly meetings, consensus, champions, > > mediation, excellence, and everything else associated with our governance > > process if the board feels that they're free to jump in at any time and > > decide > > what is best for us all? > > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Torrie Fischer > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 09, 2014 22:57:13 Michael Griesacker wrote: > > > > > in regards to the recent incident last tuesday, and, if memory > > > > serves, > > > > > > > there were two incidents with the same individual, was that member > > > > asked > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > leave, and did someone sit down with that member the next day or > > > > after > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > discuss their inappropriate behavior? > > > > > > > > I would assume "No". > > > > > > > > If someone gets asked to leave or a issue of unacceptable behavior > > > > does > > > > need > > > > brought up within the community, I'd expect to see it on discuss@. > > > > > > > > You can't really ask someone to leave and *not* tell everyone else > > > > that > > > > they're not allowed to stick around. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Torrie Fischer > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, March 09, 2014 17:35:31 [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > I feel that my suggestion was side stepped completely. > > > > > > > After receiving multiple verbal complaints, and a written formal > > > > > > > > > > > > complaint I > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel this has become a problem. Your suggestion doesn't allow > > > > SYNHAK > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > really say anything other than "bad hacker, think about what you > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > done". I don't want to see it degrade to people calling the > > > > police > > > > > > > > instead > > > > > > > > > > > > > of calmly resolving any issues within Synhak. The policy has > > > > nothing > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > with adult alcohol consumption or behavior as that is subject to > > > > > > > > opinion > > > > > > > > > > > and point of view. With this policy we can calmly and internally > > > > > > > > quell > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I re-read this and just about spat my tea on my laptop. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Internally quell"? > > > > > > > > > > > > Devin, SYNHAK is an organization that values communication and > > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > This has never changed in the last two years. > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone has a complaint about another participant in the > > > > community, > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > solution is to get the two together and hash out their > > > > differences. If > > > > > > > > someone > > > > > > had come and complained to me that another member was doing > > > > something > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > didn't approve of, I would be sure to get the two together in a > > > > safe > > > > > > space > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > mediate. Somehow that hasn't actually needed to happen 'till all > > > > this > > > > > > > > boiled > > > > > > over. I think we should consider ourselves quite lucky. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've received some pretty nasty e-mails from individuals regarding > > > > > > misunderstandings about my financial reporting. So I talked with > > > > Chris > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > he's tried to reach out and get some mediation going. I think that > > > > was > > > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > 2-3 weeks ago. From what I can tell they're still upset and not > > > > > > > > telling me > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > Chris why that is. I say that because neither of us have heard > > > > back. > > > > > > > > "Internally quell" really comes off like a non-statement. This > > > > > > drug > > > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > idea appears to be an attempt to wave some hands and hope the > > > > problem > > > > > > goes > > > > > > > > > > away without actually connecting the people in question to resolve > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > differences. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can I start complaining to you about the disrespect I get from > > > > various > > > > > > > > people? > > > > > > Is the solution to that an anti-harassment policy that just > > > > reiterates > > > > > > "Be > > > > > > > > > > Excellent To Others" without actually addressing the underlying > > > > issue > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > people thinking its OK to fill my day to day interactions with > > > > misery? > > > > > > > > No, not really. Nothing would change. > > > > > > > > > > > > I really want to get back to hacking. I'm tired of all this > > > > infighting > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > hearing whispers that people don't like me all while they refuse > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > talk > > > > > > > > > > to me > > > > > > about their issues even after directly asking them to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please try to resolve these tensions in a proven manner > > > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > > > > > making big empty statements of "drugs are bad, mmmkay?" If you > > > > want, > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > more than happy to bring in some professional mediators. I'll even > > > > pay > > > > > > > > them if > > > > > > thats what is needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > For some perspective of where I'm coming from, I'll bring up this > > > > > > quote > > > > > > that > > > > > > I've always looked back at regarding SYNHAK's governance and my > > > > ever > > > > > > > > vigilant > > > > > > fight against more rules: > > > > > > > > > > > > For we're excellent to each other here > > > > > > We rarely ever block > > > > > > We value tools over pre-emptive rules > > > > > > And spurn the key and the lock. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Danny O'Brien, 2010-11-09 general meeting notes, > > > > Noisebridge > > > > > > > > > these situations. If this is a matter best suited for the > > > > > > > police, > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be the course of action the next time this situation > > > > arises. > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > Devin Wolfe > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
