I also have doubts about a CWG's ability to resolve this particular situation, but that's too long of an email to write today.
Xander mentioned he had prepaid for a year, and said he would block the proposal. This, having never had any reason to doubt what he says, means to me he is still a member. This is an example of exactly what some are worried about. You just met him two weeks ago, Why the doubt? On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]>wrote: > Xander, > > I really am not meaning to be rude in asking, but are you even still a > member? You showed up a couple weeks ago for the first time since I've been > at SYNHAK and everyone I talked to said that you were no long a part of > SYNHAK. I'm glad you're back, I'm just confused and wondering if you have > any right to block the proposal. > > I've said many times, and I think Torrie has demonstrated, that until she > takes a break from the community and uses the time to reflect and realize > that she has been causing some serious issues dividing the community there > is no working it out. After last night she has shown me that she isn't > truly sorry or even understands what it is that she has done or said, and I > am not the only one that feels this way. A Community Working Group will > only work if both parties are willing to be truthful and work it out, and I > know Torrie says that she is, but she has continually shown that she isn't > and always feels like she is being attacked. This is not meant as a way to > attack or punish her, but address the issues she has caused. > > -Steve > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 18:22:24 -0400 > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK > > I will block this proposal if it is put up to a vote this Tuesday. It also > saddens me that this is coming up once again and the discussion on the CWG > has been silent. Torrie is leaving for two weeks. I agree with Chris that > it is not fair for us to try to push something like this through while she > is away. > > Let's get the CWG moving if we want to resolve this. A meeting where five > or more of us gang up on one person is not productive. Hell, we could even > stage an "intervention" of sorts so that way the parties that need to > discuss this can be present and no one else needs to be bothered by this > because, frankly, the people who are not involved in this conflict are > tired of hearing about it and tired of having our meetings involving > "discussion" about this. Believing that we could do any sort of conflict > resolution in the discussion section of our meetings was a failure on all > of our parts. > > If someone has problems with another member, they should be part of the > solution and help with the CWG. The methods proposed for the CWG to use are > mature, effective methods for conflict resolution. I feel creating > opportunities for us to discuss these personal conflicts all at once is > terribly ineffective and it airs all of synhak's dirty laundry on the > mailing list. Not only that but no one listens to each other when we > discuss this stuff at meetings. > > I see a lot of wrong on every side of this issue. No one is blameless in > this scenario. Removing Torrie from synhak won't improve our culture. It > just sets a precedent of us taking the easy way out of conflict resolution. > I would be proud to be the bigger person and set a great example in our > entire community by resolving this conflict in a polite, non argumentative > manner so everyone is satisfied. I am hoping others strive for that sort of > pride. > > I am begging all of our members to *please* give the CWG a chance. I > really believe that we can make a big difference and improve the future of > synhak. No issue is too big or complicated that it can't be sorted out by > those willing to sit down and discuss it. Torrie said multiple times last > night that she would love to discuss this in a safe place with a mediator. > > Let's slowly put down our pitchforks and raise our methods of effective, > non violent communication! It'll be super fun! Alright, no it won't be but > I think we'll all be a lot happier with ourselves if we do. > > -Xander > On May 14, 2014 4:57 PM, "Steve Radonich IV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris, > > Maybe I'm not explaining it right, but we will consense on the original > proposal that has been up for 2 1/2 weeks on Tuesday. Discuss the new > proposal to amend it Tuesday, and consense on the second meeting. There is > no violation of that rule there and therefore isn't valid. > > -Steve > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:55:23 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK > > Steve, > > After proposals are modified, they are considered new proposals. > > Per the meeting on February 25, 2014, which you were present at: > > ** “ Proposals must be sent in full to [email protected], with the exact > wording that will be decided upon. Any modifications to the text must be > considered as a wholly new proposal.” > > > This was approved by the membership. Your convoluted if-thens system does > not change this. So, yes, this is a new proposal. It's gotta be discussed > at next week's meeting. > > Sincerely, > Chris Egeland > > PS: Is the NES in the basement mine or yours? > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Steve Radonich IV > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Chris, > > Following the rules is technically impossible as they contradict > themselves, but I am going to amend this proposal as follows: > > To change the wording of the original proposal to remove Torrie from > SynHak to read as follows: > > To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and > forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for > a period of 180 days. > > End Proposal. > > So Tuesday May 20th we will consense on the proposal that I proposed on > April 30th that reads: > > I am proposing the following: > > The removal of Torrie Fischer from the SYNHAK community for the following > reasons. > > * Negatively talking about SYNHAK affecting the public opinion of the > community on the mailing lists, examples being: > > * "Never started SYNHAK, the Akron Hackerspace." - Wed, April 30 2014 > 17:09 > > * "Then I hear that I'm being removed as Treasurer due to Devin and > Andy's persecution complex, so I started looking for housing in the > San Francisco because SYNHAK is dead to me." - Wed, April 30 2014 15:59 > > * "It died months ago when I was convinced to rescind my proposal to > remove Justin from the board." - Wed, April 30 2014 15:59 > > * "Congrats! I'm so proud of everyone. We are now (in)famous within > the hacker communities." - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 > > * "RIP SYNHAK. Killed by bystander apathy." - Wed, April 30 2014 14:29 > > * Publicly attacking Steve Radonich IV and Andy B. on the mailing list by > unjustly calling them names, examples being: > > * "Remember, folks: you voted this mental midget of a person onto the > board :)" - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 - Directed towards Andy > > * "Remember, folks: I'm someone who should be put up with! You all > decided to go along with his plan to introduce more rules and bureaucracy > to stop someone from forcing the community to address a situation where > they feel completely unsafe!" - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 - Directed towards > Steve > > * "A community that doesn't treat me like some strange sexual > fascination as if my genitals define who I am." - Wed, April 30 2014 17:09 > - Directed towards Steve > > * "Steve loves rules and has an authoritarian stance on everything. > Thats the only reasonable answer that can explain this majestic piece of > legalese:" - Wed, April 30 2014 16:12 - Directed towards Steve > > * Using her position of Treasurer to target those she has a > disagreement with: > > * "Devin - It will be reimbursed just not now, but me and Andy have > been told no on reimbursements and just only us. Given reciepts to others > to get the money. Someone took something the wrong way, and they are > attacking back using the position as treasurer. But this needs to stop > right now, because it is discriminatory." - Tue, April 29 2014 - Meeting > Minutes > > It is with these issues, and others that I may not even be aware of, that > I feel Torrie Fischer is no longer someone SYNHAK can afford to have > around. Causing division and strife within the community, then refusing to > take responsibility for it. She has shown that she can't be trusted in a > position of power within SYNHAK as she uses it as a weapon on her personal > enemies. Personally attacking members, calling them transphobes when there > is no evidence of such, talking negatively about SYNHAK, and saying that > SYNHAK is dead are all reasons for removal. Plus if she thinks it's dead > then there is no reason for her to be here any ways as it will just cause > trouble. > > This proposal has been on the table for a few weeks, and has been > discussed at 2 meetings now. The proposal that I proposed today would just > amend it to read as stated above. Certainly that does not violate any rules. > > -Steve > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:40:46 -0400 > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK > > Steve, > > Keep it professional. I'm not insulting you, so I demand that you refrain > from doing so to me. > > Who wrote the rules on the Proposals page is irrelevant. It was consensed > upon January 1, 2013. As such, it is policy. As I mentioned, your > convoluted system of if-thens did absolutely nothing to change the > requirement that proposals are required to be discussed at one meeting, > then consensed upon at the following meeting. As someone who has been > involved with SYN/HAK since day one, I can tell you this is always how we > have done things and that I am certain that this is how the policy works. > > If you wish to change that requirement, submit a proposal to do so. > Otherwise, I am demanding that you follow our policies as written, and will > be keeping an eye on things to ensure that you do so. > > Sincerely, > Chris Egeland > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Steve Radonich IV > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Chris maybe you don't understand english, or whoever wrote these rules > doesn't but they are contradictory. I specifically remember on a number of > occasions where a proposal was brought up on a tuesday/wednesday and > decided on at the next meeting as the rules state: > > * Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for at > least one week before any decision is mate. > * Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately follows > that one week discussion period. > > A week being defined as 7 days, so if we count, Wednesday (1), Thursday > (2), Friday (3), Saturday (4), Sunday (5), Monday (6), and Tuesday (7) May > 20. And the conclusion of the one week discussion would be Tuesday May > 20th. These rules contradict themselves so much that people can pick and > choose which ones to go by. I am well aware of the policies in place, and > if you choose to go forward with that, then this would be an amendment to > reword the proposal, and the original proposal consensed on next week. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:11:58 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK > > > This is upsetting to say the least. Steve, you seem to be gungho about > changing policy at SYN/HAK. I respect that. There is definitely some > change needed within SYN/HAK. However, it's very upsetting to see the > person who is unquestionably the most adamant about changing policy utterly > failing to understand our current policies. I find it dangerous to have > someone so unfamiliar with existing policy being so adamant about changing > it. > > We will NOT be consensing on this on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 because this is > a new proposal. The wording and terms of the proposal have materially > changed. It is required by policy that this proposal be discussed at the > next meeting. The earliest this proposal could come to consensus is > Tuesday May 27, 2014. My logic is that on the official Proposals policy > page (which was adopted almost a year and a half ago), it states the > following: > > > - Proposals are discussed for one meeting, and decided upon at the > meeting that immediately follows. > - Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for > at least one week before any decision is made. > - During that week, discussion must happen during a regular weekly > meeting. > - Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately > follows that one week discussion period. > - You need to be at the deciding meeting to block consensus or > otherwise contribute to the decision. > > Your convoluted system of if-thens did not change the fact that proposals > are required to be announced at a meeting and then are eligible to be > consensed upon at the next meeting. As such, I hold that this proposal > must be discussed at next Tuesday's meeting. > > Also, I find this to be an extraordinarily bad faith attempt to remove > someone, given that just yesterday at the meeting she made it known that > she will be out of town for two weeks starting tomorrow. To me, this > sounds like "Hey guys, she's gonna be out of town, let's meet in secret and > kick her out of SYN/HAK." > > > *** Torrie - so that's a really amazing idea, but I'm leaving for San > Francisco thursday but I'm coming back in 2 weeks. Can we meet thursday to > work out a plan > > Sincerely, > Chris Egeland > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Steve Radonich IV > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Following the events at last nights meeting, and discussion with many > different members, I've decided to move forward with my proposal to have > Torrie removed from the SYNHAK community. I am going to make some slight > modifications to it below and please give your feedback, this will be > concensed (Spelling?) on next Tuesday. > > The proposal is as follows: > > To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and > forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for > a period of 180 days. > > End Proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
