Grievance Procedure Update

[Russ Garrett]

It is with regret that I have to note for the record that the number
of people who have received more than two formal warnings now stands
at two:

http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Warnings_Issued

Cheers,

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[SamLR]

Thanks for keeping us in the loop

[Adrian Godwin]

Do warnings have an expiry period (like points on your driving licence) ?

The grievance procedure states that a ban is by default for a year,
but doesn't mention any limit on the lifetime of a warning.

-adrian

[Russ Garrett]

On 29 October 2012 09:19, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do warnings have an expiry period (like points on your driving licence) ?

It's currently at the trustees' discretion (there's also nothing
stopping us from issuing more than three official warnings before a
ban). I wouldn't be averse to putting it in the procedure, but I
wonder if a year is long enough.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Adrian Godwin]

I'd have thought a year was too short. But I'm uncomfortable with the
idea of past thoughtlessness hanging over someone forever.

-adrian

[Jon Fautley]

On 29 October 2012 09:32, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd have thought a year was too short. But I'm uncomfortable with the
> idea of past thoughtlessness hanging over someone forever.

What about 'active' for 3 years, on your record for 5? (Just like
points on your driving license) Possibly with a shorter term for
undisclosed first warnings, say 18 months?

If you've got to a second warning it's not really a bit of 'past
thoughtlessness', but the fact you caused a persistent nuisance to the
space for a prolonged period of time. The warning length should
reflect this.

[Adrian Godwin]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jon Fautley <jon.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 09:32, Adrian Godwin <artg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd have thought a year was too short. But I'm uncomfortable with the
>> idea of past thoughtlessness hanging over someone forever.
>
> What about 'active' for 3 years, on your record for 5? (Just like
> points on your driving license) Possibly with a shorter term for
> undisclosed first warnings, say 18 months?

Sounds a bit complicated.

>
> If you've got to a second warning it's not really a bit of 'past
> thoughtlessness', but the fact you caused a persistent nuisance to the
> space for a prolonged period of time. The warning length should
> reflect this.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were trivial events. I believe
it takes a fairly consistent stretch of lack of thought for others,
and probably some failures to respond to hints, before an official
warning is issued.

-adrian

[samthetechie]

Hey all, I am sorry about all this and I thought that suspending the bike on the rack was acceptable so they are not a nuisance to other users of the workshop (see photo). Nobody has mentioned that this was a problem to me and I have just, rather out of the blue it seems, received a warning?

You may remember that my new bike was stolen from Hoxton station recently.
Quim was kind enough to give me a replacement bike (which was very kind, thanks Quim) but unfortunately the tyre actually blew up (rather than punctured) while I was cycling and that's why it is now pending repairs hanging in the bike rack, I have a friend coming to help me fix it Friday.

I would kindly ask as many members of the hackspace community that are at all interested to review this warning, please look at the photo and comments and decide if this worth a warning or if this situation could have been handled differently? I would like to find a constructive way forward here.

Many thanks,

Sam

[Jon Fautley]

On 29 October 2012 11:02, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would kindly ask as many members of the hackspace community that are at all interested to review this warning, please look at the photo and comments and decide if this worth a warning or if this situation could have been handled differently? I would like to find a constructive way forward here.

It looks like that's the bike I stuck a Notice of Disposal sticker on. It was not in the rack when I did this. You know the rules about bikes in the workshop, I would strongly suggest you stop whinging about it before you enrage the collective further.

The fact you have a 2nd warning seems to indicate that you've had a first warning at some point as well.

Thanks

Jon

PS - Seriously? You think hanging your bike from the rack in such a manner that it looks like it'll fall on someone, makes it OK to have in the workshop?!

[Tim Reynolds]

If by some reasoning you were not in breach of the "no bikes in the
space" rule, you've still left something bigger than a members box
without asking.

On 29/10/2012 11:06, Jon Fautley wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 11:02, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com

[Adrian Godwin]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey all, I am sorry about all this and I thought that suspending the bike on the rack was acceptable so they are not a nuisance to other users of the workshop (see photo). Nobody has mentioned that this was a problem to me and I have just, rather out of the blue it seems, received a warning?

I'd expect you to know that you've been given a warning. Has one of the trustees spoken to you about a bike within the last week ?

 

I would kindly ask as many members of the hackspace community that are at all interested to review this warning, please look at the photo and comments and decide if this worth a warning or if this situation could have been handled differently? I would like to find a constructive way forward here.

Personally, I'd expect that to get you a request to move it, followed by a warning if you failed to do that. It looks as though it makes the parts storage very inconvenient, and I don't see that putting something large in the space can be excused just by taking it off the floor.

It sucks that you had your bike stolen, but it's not the hackspace's problem. It's a problem for all londoners and part of the cost of using a bike to escape the road and train problems. If all cyclists in the hackspace solved it by putting their bike there, there wouldn't be any hacking possible.

-adrian

[samthetechie]

Hey Artag, I agree with you that it is not the responsibility of the hackspace but it was unfortunate that it was because I was, specifically, trying to follow this guidance that my bike was stolen. No the first I heard about the bike was a formal warning. It seems that the 'soft options' were deemed inappropriate in my case? I had written out on my DNH sticker but oh well.

Sam

[Charles Yarnold]

On 29 October 2012 11:02, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would kindly ask as many members of the hackspace community that are at all interested to review this warning, please look at the photo and comments and decide if this worth a warning or if this situation could have been handled differently? I would like to find a constructive way forward here.

There are many ways this could have been handled differently:

• You could have locked up your bike outside.

• You could have taken it home with you and brought it back when ready to work on it.

• You could have followed the storage rules.

What did happen was we gave you multiple reminders and warnings, culminating in (with other issues included) a first warning. From this you were reminded of the rules and are in no way ignorant of them. 

[Akki]

Please read one of the 7 A3 sheets posted around the Hackspace of the Rules the next time you're in. Do Not Hack stickers are worthless without a prior email to the mailing list. This has always been the rule, do not try to pretend it's never been. Just because everyone ignores it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hugs and Squiggles,

~Akki

[David Sullivan]

On Wednesday, 31 October 2012 12:36:37 UTC, samthetechie wrote:

Hey Artag, I agree with you that it is not the responsibility of the hackspace but it was unfortunate that it was because I was, specifically, trying to follow this guidance that my bike was stolen. No the first I heard about the bike was a formal warning. It seems that the 'soft options' were deemed inappropriate in my case? I had written out 

About this *particular* bike, perhaps. If I wheel in a different bike each day does that magically reset some invisible counter? Your other bikes have been in for weeks resulting in many informal warnings and an appearance in Junk-Space. To claim you didn't know it would be a problem because this is another different bike is bizarre in the extreme

Sully.

[tom]

personally I dont mind the bike being stored there

[samthetechie]

You are right about one thing, there are another way it could have been handled by the community. All the energy that has gone into this discussion highlights a lack of excellence in the community. We have all put more effort and energy into this witch hunt and petty bureaucracy rather than someone simply offering to help get me fix my tyre and get me back on the road- as I did for another member when he was in need because his brakes were stolen. I recall Claire's bike was in the space for over a year but I would never once presume to ask her to remove it. I did, however, ask her 3 times if I could help her to repair it.

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:39:47 PM UTC, Solexious wrote:

On 29 October 2012 11:02, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would kindly ask as many members of the hackspace community that are at all interested to review this warning, please look at the photo and comments and decide if this worth a warning or if this situation could have been handled differently? I would like to find a constructive way forward here.

There are many ways this could have been handled differently:

• You could have locked up your bike outside.

Tried that, a £150 bike got nicked after owning it for 2 weeks. Not rich enough to play that game again.

• You could have taken it home with you and brought it back when ready to work on it.

Yes but this would further damage the tyre, innner and wheel base as I have a long walk from the station at my end.

• You could have followed the storage rules. 

They are rather 2-dimensional and I thought the bike rack was for hanging bikes, my bad

What did happen was we gave you multiple reminders and warnings, culminating in (with other issues included) a first warning. From this you were reminded of the rules and are in no way ignorant of them. 

But I was not given any hint this time even though the situation is totally different, got you

[Tim Reynolds]

> What did happen was we gave you multiple reminders and warnings,
> culminating in (with other issues included) a first warning. From
> this you were reminded of the rules and are in no way ignorant of them.
>

> *But I was not given any hint this time even though the situation is
> totally different, got you*

but how was it different? A bike you own was in the space. The reason is
immaterial. The rule is "no bikes in the space", not "no bikes in the
space unless x y z or perhaps a b c" ? You've been spoken to about bikes
in the space dozens of times, you know its an issue - yet you still
decided that it was probably going to be ok.

[samthetechie]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:08:09 PM UTC, Tim R wrote:

>     What did happen was we gave you multiple reminders and warnings,
>     culminating in (with other issues included) a first warning. From
>     this you were reminded of the rules and are in no way ignorant of them.
>
> *But I was not given any hint this time even though the situation is
> totally different, got you*

but how was it different?

• much shorter timescale
• a definite end point when it will be removed
• someone is coming to help me fix it
• nobody has told me it was in their way
• it is in the bike area of the space
  

[Charles Yarnold]

On 31 October 2012 13:05, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are right about one thing, there are another way it could have been handled by the community. All the energy that has gone into this discussion highlights a lack of excellence in the community. We have all put more effort and energy into this witch hunt and petty bureaucracy rather than someone simply offering to help get me fix my tyre and get me back on the road- as I did for another member when he was in need because his brakes were stolen. I recall Claire's bike was in the space for over a year but I would never once presume to ask her to remove it. I did, however, ask her 3 times if I could help her to repair it.

When she was asked to remove it she did, she has also never brought one back since and done the same thing. I believe she may have declined your help as your an unpleasant person to be around.  

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:39:47 PM UTC, Solexious wrote:

On 29 October 2012 11:02, samthetechie <samuelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would kindly ask as many members of the hackspace community that are at all interested to review this warning, please look at the photo and comments and decide if this worth a warning or if this situation could have been handled differently? I would like to find a constructive way forward here.

There are many ways this could have been handled differently:

• You could have locked up your bike outside.

Tried that, a £150 bike got nicked after owning it for 2 weeks. Not rich enough to play that game again.

Fine, if you don't want to do that that's your choice. 

• You could have taken it home with you and brought it back when ready to work on it.

Yes but this would further damage the tyre, innner and wheel base as I have a long walk from the station at my end.

Pick it up, use a trolly. 

• You could have followed the storage rules. 

They are rather 2-dimensional and I thought the bike rack was for hanging bikes, my bad

The bike parts area is for storage of bits for repairing bikes, as you can see from your pictures it clearly doesn't fit.

What did happen was we gave you multiple reminders and warnings, culminating in (with other issues included) a first warning. From this you were reminded of the rules and are in no way ignorant of them. 

But I was not given any hint this time even though the situation is totally different, got you

Wow, just wow Sam.

[Tim Hardy]

Sam, you're making yourself look pathetic. Stop whining, man up, accept the warning and stop lying that you didn't know about the rules when it is perfectly obvious that you did.

[Tim Hardy]

Sorry that wasn't meant for the entire list.

[Jonty Wareing]

> We have all put more effort and energy into this witch hunt and
> petty bureaucracy

This has not been a "witch hunt", the only reason you were issued
with a warning was due to persistent complaints from many other
members about your abuse of the space. The bike is just one among
many reasons, as you are well aware.

If you would like us to publicly list all of the reasons for your
warnings we are happy to do so, normally we do not publish this
information for privacy reasons.

> rather than someone simply offering to help get me fix my tyre and

> get me back on the road - as I did for another member when he was

> in need because his brakes were stolen.

As far as I am aware you have not requested help repairing the bike,
and the bike had a "do not hack" sticker on it. People do not randomly
start finishing others projects in the space, nor should they.

If you had asked for help (as the other member did when they had a
brake stolen) I am absolutely certain that someone would have assisted
you. This argument is little more than a diversionary tactic.

> I recall Claire's bike was in the space for over a year but I would
> never once presume to ask her to remove it. I did, however, ask her
> 3 times if I could help her to repair it.

This was two years ago, long before we had space constraints, or any
basic rules regarding storage. As soon as space became an issue and we
had to ask people to take things away it was removed.

Before you bring up the big laser as another long-term object, you may
notice that it is gone, and the metal casing is in the scraps area for
the metalworkers to use.

--jonty

[Ximin Luo]

On 31/10/12 13:15, samthetechie wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:08:09 PM UTC, Tim R wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What did happen was we gave you multiple reminders and warnings,
>>> culminating in (with other issues included) a first warning. From
>>> this you were reminded of the rules and are in no way ignorant of
>> them.
>>>
>>> *But I was not given any hint this time even though the situation is
>>> totally different, got you*
>>
>> but how was it different?
>
>

> - much shorter timescale
> - a definite end point when it will be removed
> - someone is coming to help me fix it
> - nobody has told me it was in their way
> - it is in the bike area of the space
>

If you think you are somehow championing any principles of individual liberty,
stop thinking this - you are not.

As much as I hate blanket rules, and I firmly disagree that "reason is
immaterial", in this particular case (and as in previous cases) you do not seem
to have any significantly special reason to override the general principle of
not storing bikes in the space.

Anyone can apply the same reasoning as you are doing to justify this action;
but if everyone did so the hackspace would be non-functional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

> A bike you own was in the space. The reason is
>> immaterial. The rule is "no bikes in the space", not "no bikes in the
>> space unless x y z or perhaps a b c" ? You've been spoken to about bikes
>> in the space dozens of times, you know its an issue - yet you still
>> decided that it was probably going to be ok.
>>
>>
>>

--
GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0
https://bitbucket.org/infinity0
https://launchpad.net/~infinity0

[930913]

From a hacker's perspective, wasn't it a bit premature to formally warn him, before the complete dismantling of his bike?

[tgreer]

Where's your excellence Sam?