Heck, no ones perfect, but I don't think Dean is the ogre that he is represented to be....
Just to clarify, will the vote be to remove Dean as a member, or to remove as trustee? Or will there be a vote for each proposal?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Ethics and Manipulation
I have a number of question that I would appreciate direct honest answers from the people involved (as I am sure the members do to) and not more spin
Jonty – did you state that you would resign before I was elected if I was elected? to anyone
Charles - did you state that you would resign before I was elected if I was elected? to anyone
Jonty - during this discussion above or any other did you tell a group of trustees or former trustess to ignore another trustee or former trustee
View
This is in my opinion not about me but about the “old guard losing” control of the process and space
It is the escalation of the fact that I stood and my election manifest which was clear before the election started – ie it is an extension of a manipulation of an election
Content
I have only ever had two accusations of aggression which I agree is to many, one was a baseless vexation claim Charles Yarnold, the other is by a member, I cannot name him but would add that I immediately apologised to the people around us and the next time we saw each other we exchanged a mutual heartfelt apology and a handshake (possibly a hug)
I have asked the trustees privately for clarification on my disciplinary record as I am at odds with the stated position.
Hopefully there are enough people who actually know me or have the integrity to be honest a lot of what has been said on the list in the last few weeks is by people who have never spoken to me or who have barley exchanges two words with me
On 9 Dec 2015 10:07, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>
> This reads like it started out as an aggressive vilification, but after you realised that the accusations were unsubstantiated and defamatory, it was pared back to something more based in reality.
>
> The final product reads like 13 people making an extremely stern statement about behaviour that has been investigated in detail, and doesn't appear to break the rules of the hackspace, but you are very disapproving nonetheless.
>
I think you've misread the email. The point is that incidents weren't provable, not that they weren't against the rules. Please remember that we have a code of conduct, which perhaps needs more power to deal with unwitnessed incidents:
https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Code_of_Conduct
> The corollary of this, of course, (and I am talking about the general case rather than Dean's behaviour), is that it seems to show that it is possible to be perfectly mean and unpleasant at the hackspace, but that as long as no particular incident amounts to "stepping over the line", then they are free to act as you please, because the trustees engaged with the grievance procedure are hamstrung by the requirement to point at a specific incident of abuse with witnesses.
>
This is unfortunately true: we have to be able to allow for people who have disagreements where the space itself isn't involved. With 1250 members, we're not able to make assertions about whether someone will be excellent to you, only how the community and trustees will respond to reported problems. Note that Tgreer was banned for aggressive and territorial behaviour, and Scooby's had a similar warming. Suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome.
Mark
On 9 Dec 2015 10:07, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
> I think you've misread the email. The point is that incidents weren't provable, not that they weren't against the rules.
On 9 Dec 2015 11:43, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 11:29:36 UTC, Mark Steward wrote:
>>
>> On 9 Dec 2015 10:07, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you've misread the email. The point is that incidents weren't provable, not that they weren't against the rules.
>
>
> I think you are making the assumption that the rules were broken. I prefer to work on the basis that one is innocent until proven guilty.
>
I tend to believe that when someone reports that someone was a dick to them they're not making it up. Usually what turns out after speaking to witnesses is that an argument escalated very quickly, frequently due to misunderstanding.
However, when I as trustee was involved in a report about Dean, he categorically denied anything had happened. With no witnesses, we only had a complaint and a denial. At this point, we had no suggestion that it was a pattern, so simply sent an informal warning, outside the grievance process. I stood down that year, so I'm not sure how complaints have played out since.
> I also have some doubts over the use of the phrase "declined to raise formal complaints because they were
> fearful of reprisals"
>
> I've met Dean, and while he is forthright in his views, and I can see might be considered a massive PITA, but he's not some gangster.
>
As I mentioned in another thread, when I moderated Dean after his torrent back on 6th March 2013, the trustees received 12 emails from him (that I know of - a couple were sent individually and then shared on), complaining about injustice, demanding process, and pointing out other things that he felt were more important than his slight. And this just because we wanted to slow down his rate of posting.
Plenty of people in the space would rather leave than put up with this much shit, and I've seen comments on IRC saying as much after an invitation to email the trustees about something.
Mark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
On 9 Dec 2015 11:43, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 11:29:36 UTC, Mark Steward wrote:
>>
>> On 9 Dec 2015 10:07, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you've misread the email. The point is that incidents weren't provable, not that they weren't against the rules.
>
>
> I think you are making the assumption that the rules were broken. I prefer to work on the basis that one is innocent until proven guilty.
>
I tend to believe that when someone reports that someone was a dick to them they're not making it up. Usually what turns out after speaking to witnesses is that an argument escalated very quickly, frequently due to misunderstanding.
However, when I as trustee was involved in a report about Dean, he categorically denied anything had happened. With no witnesses, we only had a complaint and a denial. At this point, we had no suggestion that it was a pattern, so simply sent an informal warning, outside the grievance process. I stood down that year, so I'm not sure how complaints have played out since.
@Mark Are you talking about the event on a crowded open night in the main area, in full view of everyone, where no independent witness could be found, which by the way, I view/viewed as a vexatious action by a trustee - I would suggest I am not the one with a pattern here
> I also have some doubts over the use of the phrase "declined to raise formal complaints because they were
> fearful of reprisals"
>
> I've met Dean, and while he is forthright in his views, and I can see might be considered a massive PITA, but he's not some gangster.
>
As I mentioned in another thread, when I moderated Dean after his torrent back on 6th March 2013, the trustees received 12 emails from him (that I know of - a couple were sent individually and then shared on), complaining about injustice, demanding process, and pointing out other things that he felt were more important than his slight. And this just because we wanted to slow down his rate of posting.
Plenty of people in the space would rather leave than put up with this much shit, and I've seen comments on IRC saying as much after an invitation to email the trustees about something.
Mark
@Mark Yes if I recollect correctly this is where I stood up for a new member whom I did not know prior to that time, whom I felt was not being treated appropriately - I did get quite agitated at this injustice - how long ago was this?
As I mentioned in another thread, when I moderated Dean after his torrent back on 6th March 2013, the trustees received 12 emails from him (that I know of - a couple were sent individually and then shared on), complaining about injustice, demanding process, and pointing out other things that he felt were more important than his slight. And this just because we wanted to slow down his rate of posting.
Plenty of people in the space would rather leave than put up with this much shit, and I've seen comments on IRC saying as much after an invitation to email the trustees about something.
Mark
@Mark Yes if I recollect correctly this is where I stood up for a new member whom I did not know prior to that time, whom I felt was not being treated appropriately - I did get quite agitated at this injustice - how long ago was this?
On 9 Dec 2015 11:43, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 11:29:36 UTC, Mark Steward wrote:
>>
>> On 9 Dec 2015 10:07, "Tom Hodder" <t...@limepepper.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you've misread the email. The point is that incidents weren't provable, not that they weren't against the rules.
>
>
> I think you are making the assumption that the rules were broken. I prefer to work on the basis that one is innocent until proven guilty.
>I tend to believe that when someone reports that someone was a dick to them they're not making it up. Usually what turns out after speaking to witnesses is that an argument escalated very quickly, frequently due to misunderstanding.
However, when I as trustee was involved in a report about Dean, he categorically denied anything had happened. With no witnesses, we only had a complaint and a denial. At this point, we had no suggestion that it was a pattern, so simply sent an informal warning, outside the grievance process. I stood down that year, so I'm not sure how complaints have played out since.
@Mark Are you talking about the event on a crowded open night in the main area, in full view of everyone, where no independent witness could be found, which by the way, I view/viewed as a vexatious action by a trustee - I would suggest I am not the one with a pattern here
--
Charles - did you state that you would resign before I was elected if I was elected? to anyone
--
@Brendan If the members don’t believe it is appropriate for me to be an office bearer, I will be happy to step down, if they want me, I will do all I can to make a positive contribution. I have served on boards of significant size with many member in the pasts… of whom many had different backgrounds and positions, which actually made the boards more powerful as they were able to conduct themselves in a constructive manner. I would like to see the Hackspace operate in a similar manner.
The same approach applies to my membership of the hackspace…. many of the people on the list who are rather unhappy have never or hardly spoken to me, if they want to take the opportunity to talk to me in person, I will happily engage with them.
It is and will be business as usual for me as far as the space is concerned up to to AGM and results of the voting that will come from that.
FYI I am away in Iceland from Monday for a week, I don’t normally take “internet” with me when I travel or am on a break
@Charles I have asked the question Phil has put to you further up this thread, if you want to skirt around it that’s your prerogative.
Hi Brendan,
As a current trustee:
I will work with whoever the democratic process gives, as anything else is
a massive personal failure in my opinion.
Regards
Paddy
While the motion to ask for an EGM was started before the election, it could be perceived that there was a level of personal animus involved.
Dean is large, comes from Zimbabwe and can be abrasive. Some people have said that they find him aggressive at times, that he has abused the system at the Hackspace and that he should be removed.Dean is large, comes from Zimbabwe and can be abrasive. Some people have said that they find him gentle once you get to know him, that he has made a big contribution to the space and that he should be allowed to have a chance to show what he can contribute as a trustee.
The EGM is likely to be a tug-of-war rather than a positive means of resolving a contentious issue and is unlikely to provide a means of avoiding this happening again.
Instead we have an example of how to behave unfairly and unprofessionally.
The trustee's who said, they would resign if Dean was elected, should follow through with their threat.
Behaving like a professional sometimes means having to work with people that you don't personally get on with.
If they had really been acting with the best interests of the hackspace as a whole, they should have swallowed their personal dislikes, acted professionally, and got on with running the space effectively.
Since they haven't been behaving impartially in this situation, then how can we trust them to behave impartially in other situations?
Being impartial is what got us into this mess in the first place, we don't want trustees to be impartial we want them to do what is right for the space. What trustees said in private, or in jest about resigning is really none of our business. Nobody made a public statement saying they would resign. If anyone is going to resign they are obviously going to wait until after results of the EGM.
(they've been mostly directed at Trustees after all)
Behaving like a professional sometimes means having to work with people that you don't personally get on with.
If they had really been acting with the best interests of the hackspace as a whole, they should have swallowed their personal dislikes, acted professionally, and got on with running the space effectively.
People stop saying
If the trustee's felt that Dean was going to be this much of a problem, then they should have resigned, like they said they were going to.
So far, no-one has given a direct answer to any of my questions.
Who are the trustee's that said they would resign if Dean was elected?
Why didn't they resign?
[...]
My problem is that if those trustee's were actually interested in the welfare of the hackspace, then they should have taken the moral high ground, and resigned, just like they were trying to get Dean to do.
"My problem is that if those trustee's were actually interested in the welfare of the hackspace, then they should have taken the moral high ground, and resigned, just like they were trying to get Dean to do."Wow, Billy. No one told Dean to resign. He's under no obligation to do so. An EGM has been called in order for the community to perform an enquiry into the very hearsay that's bothering everyone right now. That's what it's for.
Brendan Sleight's questions have only been answered by Sam. No other trustee has said anything.
"My problem is that if those trustee's were actually interested in the welfare of the hackspace, then they should have taken the moral high ground, and resigned, just like they were trying to get Dean to do."Wow, Billy. No one told Dean to resign. He's under no obligation to do so. An EGM has been called in order for the community to perform an enquiry into the very hearsay that's bothering everyone right now. That's what it's for.
Being a trustee *sucks*. It's a hard, thankless job. It involves many hours over time for people who already work full time. They deal with a business, finance and logistics behind the scenes in addition to member concerns. They *can't* complain about things that bother them because it's their job to keep the community running, not stir up shit. They cop a lot of flack from the community but they have to just grin and bear it. Sometimes they actually *don't* know what the right thing to do is, but oh boy they gotta watch out when they do slip up because someone in the community immediately jump down their necks. And what do they get for all that? A big fat nothing.
Please give them a break, Billy. You've made your point abundantly clear. And no, I don't think the space can operate with half the trustees. It hardly limps along with nine. I hope that *none* of the trustees resign, in the best interest of the space.
They didn't tell him to resign, they asked him to resign. Just after the election results were posted.
I saw the emails that Jonty sent.
--
I really don't think its cool for Dean or anyone else to be forwarding private emails to anyone without their permission. If the emails were intended to be private correspondence, why have they ended up spreading so far already?
--
--
(and Jonty was incorrect in his email promoting the EGM about there being 4).
Wait a minute, just an hour ago, you said:
> The trustees in question, appear to have taken a stash of confidential
information pertaining to the grievance procedure, and distributed that information to a large number of members in an attempt to smear
Dean Forbes
Are you basing your argument on made up nonsense like this?
Mark
5 trustees can already call a general meeting.
--
You didn't ask a question, you followed typical bully behavior of 'I have your in information and I'll post it if you want'. Which, when posted in a public forum is a typical way for bullys to try to make themselves seem like not being the bad guy, while trying to intimate the mark and put him in an impossible situation.
We don't need to see private emails, there is enough public domain information available for us to make up our minds now. If Jonty wants to keep quiet now he has that right and we should stop the harassment
--
--