Grievance procedure update - Miloud Bouhaddou (Scooby) banned for 12 months

[Samb1]

Grievance procedure update - Miloud Bouhaddou (Scooby) banned for 12 months

 

Dear Members,

We are sad to inform you that Miloud Bouhaddou's (aka Scooby's) 12 month ban for repeated unacceptable behaviour will begin at 1am Sunday 4th December 2016 and conclude 1am Sunday 4th December 2017. 

This decision was made today, the 3rd of December after a set of complaints about his aggressive behaviour both in person and on the mailing list.

This also partly relates to posts held in moderation, and due to Miloud's previous emails, from being able to be posted to the mailing list. These posts were rejected rather than being allowed to be posted.

We didn't take this decision lightly, and we expect that some of you will have questions. The remainder of this email outlines our reasons for finally agreeing on this unfortunate ban.

<<Why do we have these rules?>>

We rely on all members to be cooperative, communicative, and proactive in managing our shared space. The London Hackspace is not supposed to be a place where a small number of people have to police other members' actions, but instead a place where members can be trusted to take charge themselves. This only works when all our members agree to a basic level of appropriate behaviour which is how our rules were formed. You can find them here:

https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Rules

Ultimately we have these rules so we don't have to make arbitrary decisions.

<<What did Miloud do?>>

On a number of occasions Miloud has been involved in abusive confrontations with a number of other Hackspace members both in person and on the mailing list. This violates our code of conduct, this can be found here: https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Code_of_Conduct

<<How did this escalate to a ban?>>

Our grievance procedure is a three strike system, which you can read more about here:

https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure

Miloud previously received two formal warnings on 24th April 2014 and 29th July 2014 for abusive behaviour in person and on the mailing list and was previously given a short ban of 3 months for the same reasons in the hope that he would change his approach on the 20th of March 2016.

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

https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Bans_Issued

Samantha Thompson

on behalf of The London Hackspace Trustees

[Alex McConnachie]

Mind if we have some kind of report or details on the specific incident that took place? As an everyday member of the space I haven't witnessed any untoward behaviour from Miloud so I'll dare to hazard this is something to do with an incident on the mailing list.

Also, what ramifications will this have on the process of trustee elections seeing as he was running for the position of trustee?

[Russ Garrett]

As for how this affects the election: he will be treated as withdrawn
candidate, which is equivalent to not appearing on the ballot at all.
No votes will be wasted.

Just for the record, I was not a party to this decision as I ceased to
be a trustee at the start of the election - as such, this is the first
I've heard of it.

Russ

> --
> 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.



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

[Patrick Dent]

Fantastic timing with the ban. Superb.
any idea what his position was before he was removed from the ballot?

I have never seen Scooby being confrontational at the space even though he is a bit forthright with his opinion sometimes.

[Tim Reynolds]

The election calculation doesn't happen till the end. The system we use
doesn't really work with live swingometers or vote totals.

[Russ Garrett]

On 3 December 2016 at 22:28, Patrick Dent <kantp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> any idea what his position was before he was removed from the ballot?

I, along with everyone else, am unable to see the votes until the
election ends. The ballot is unchanged until that point as well, so
the published election data will contain all those votes.

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

[Liam Lynch]

Considering this has occured within 24 hours of the close of the elections I think a higher level of transparancey is required.

liam

[Charles Yarnold]

Given that the complaint would have been handled the same if Miloud had been a trustee at the time (that is to say, he would not have been involved with the decision making process, and the outcome would have ended his membership), the timing of the elections doesn't actually affect this. 

On 3 December 2016 at 22:34, Liam Lynch <dickhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considering this has occured within 24 hours of the close of the elections I think a higher level of transparancey is required.

liam

--
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-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Dent]

Maybe so, but contrary to my earlier sarcasm, the timing of this decision was dreadful for whatever little faith remained in the competence of the system.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/rW05zRT7H-M/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Liam Lynch]

I am makeing no comment on the effect of the elections. But to banning someone mid election clearly requires clarification.

Liam

[Tim Reynolds]

Conversely, it has helped renew my faith in said system. Hopefully more on the way.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

I have no special knowledge of, or insight into, the events that
resulted in this. However, as has already been mentioned, the timing of
this is probably the worst possible and is likely going to create a lot
of paranoia & rumour about both the voting process and the board of
directors who ruled on this. This at a time in which we need to be
building cohesion to allow the hackspace to exist past next year. This
sucks.

It would also sadly seem unavoidable to me that this has happened at the
11th hour. If a valid complaint that would result in a 3rd strike and
subsequent ban is made the day before the accused might get a board
position, then the complaint needs to be acted upon immediately. The
alternative risks an outcome where a new member of the board is
immediately banned, loosing their position and leaving the board down
one person for the next year, or otherwise forcing another election.
Leaving it to afterwards, win or loose, would additionally open it to
accusations of revenge or election-rigging.

This is not the best course of action, but it seems to be the
*least-bad* in that it carries the least additional baggage of the
options available.

[Charles Yarnold]

Given that this was handled the same way that any complaints process would have to any member at any time, why do you feel this should be given special treatment?

On 3 December 2016 at 23:26, Liam Lynch <dickhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am makeing no comment on the effect of the elections. But to banning someone mid election clearly requires clarification.

Liam

[Charles Yarnold]

Would have ignoring complaints until after the election have been better? Why should a currently running election grant anyone running in the election any different treatment to any other member?

[Mentar .]

Having seen Scooby's intimidating behavior first hand, this latest development does not surprises me in the slightest, even though I have no information about the latest incident that led to the ban.

The only problem that I see with "the system" is people who have no interest in the the well being space that abuse the rules to their advantage and keep getting away with it. I hope the newly elected trustees will have the resolve to bring some order to the process, as it's soul destroying work and it's no surprise that the current trustees would probably find a infinite number of better things to do than police this kindergarden.

On 3 December 2016 at 23:31, Patrick Dent <kantp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Charles Yarnold]

You just explained it much more eloquently than I could.

[tgreer]

Excellent. I think we need to look at a permanent ban going forward if this sort of behavior reoccurs at the end of this ban.

[David Murphy]

Are there any specific examples that can be talked about publicly?

(On which note, are messages someone attempted to send to the list but which were moderated considered "private" if the individual was attempting to post them publicly?)

--

[Ant Invent]

I'm with those calling for transparency... Having not experienced any confrontational behaviour from him myself (quite the contrary actually), this sits jarringly.
As mentioned above, the timing of this and the fact that he was running for trustee absolutely requires transparency over the reason behind the ban, if only to promote trust that there was no personal motivation behind this.

[Matt Taylor]

You realise this is a statement in the same league as, "I have never really noticed warmer weather, so the concept of Global Warming is pretty jarring..."

On 5 Dec 2016 13:40, "Ant Invent" <tonyov...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm with those calling for transparency... Having not experienced any confrontational behaviour from him myself (quite the contrary actually), this sits jarringly.
As mentioned above, the timing of this and the fact that he was running for trustee absolutely requires transparency over the reason behind the ban, if only to promote trust that there was no personal motivation behind this.

[Ant Invent]

Or it could simply be that judgments of character are a relevant part of the discussion when imposing a hefty sanction for behaviour.

The fact that nobody is willing to even release the evidence makes me question the board's judgment more than Scooby's...

Of course, ban him if it's justified, but it can't be 'guilty until proven innocent', and given the timing and potential conflict of interest, anyone who voted or is thinking of standing in the future deserves a basic level of transparency about this decision.

[Ant Invent]

P.s. would you blindly believe in global warming if climate scientists kept all their findings secret?

Although it may not serve the point you're trying to make, this is a more accurate analogy.

[Martin (Crypt)]

The reason for keeping the evidence secret is that you can't release the evidence, without also identifying the people who made the complaint.  This can lead to victimisation of the complainant, and also it would make people less likely to come forward with their complaints in the future.  Thats not saying there can never be a case where it might be in the best interests to release some evidence, but its not generally procedure, and it has to be fairly extreme circumstances for this to happen.

At the end of the day, we all elect the trustees as the people we think are best to deal with situations like this, and we have to trust them to do their job, or vote them out.  As it happens, scooby wouldn't have won anyway, so the election is really a mute point in this whole discussion.  

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Ant Invent <tonyov...@gmail.com> wrote:

P.s. would you blindly believe in global warming if climate scientists kept all their findings secret?

Although it may not serve the point you're trying to make, this is a more accurate analogy.

[David Dorward]

On 5 Dec 2016, at 14:10, Ant Invent wrote:
> The fact that nobody is willing to even release the evidence makes me
> question the board's judgment more than Scooby's...

There is a really nasty pattern that, when someone gets sanctioned for
negative behaviour towards an individual or individuals, there is an
immediate cry from some quarters for the ugly details.

Publishing that information isn’t fair on the perpetrator, and it
isn’t fair on the people the negative behaviour was targeted at.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

Can we please lay off the hyperbole, like comparing this to global
warming and adding the "-gate" suffix to compare it to international
political intrigue.

[Ant Invent]

There's nothing nasty about a desire for transparency.
We elect a bunch of strangers (I'm a regular to the space and only two of the cadidates had ever introduced themselves to me) on faith that they have the best intentions and abilities towards the job. Looking at hell holes like this mailing list, however, does not germinate much faith that judgements on conduct are carried out in a balanced and impartial manner.
It's not unfair for the membership to request a simple "this took place, breaking this rule, hence this punishment". No victims/witnesses need be named. It's no more than happens in 'real life' and it helps people to a) get a better handle on the rules, and b) maintain belief that they are applied fairly and equally.

I have no opinion on the case at hand, just the clandestine manner in which a very serious sanction has been applied, with extremely unfortunate timing.

[Mentar .]

Ant, you are complaining about the list being a "hell hole" when are trying pretty hard to make sure it is such, please stop being a hypocrite.

If you think you are electing strangers then it's probably you who hasn't bothered to talk to the 8 trustees we have, do you really expect every trustee to personally introduce themselves to the 1200+ members, come one man, be real!

I voted for the trustees and know them all personally, I may not agree with some of them or with their actions but I trust them to be able to make the decision that's fair an members and is for the better of the hackspace as an organisation.

Scooby was banned previously, so while I don't know what happened in this case that got him the 12 month, I am not surprised to see more of similar behavior coming from him. The fact that you haven't been the target or witness of unacceptable behavior does not mean it didn't happen.

Please just let it go and try and do something positive for the space!

Thanks

Mentar

[Ant Invent]

We clearly have different definitions of "hell hole"... I was referring to the endemic flaming and bullying, not people disagreeing with one another.

I'm not trying to argue with you here but you're missing the point entirely - it's about transparency, nothing more nothing less.

It's quite an exceptional event for someone to be banned while they're standing for election, I think on that we can all agree. With so many different motivations in play it's right to right to request some openness, this is, after all, a community. The argument of "Oh well, that's just what he's like, he probably deserved it" is no more valid than my comment that I haven't witnessed it. For the sake of trust in the process, all we're requesting is transparency.

p.s. as for trustee engagement (you don't need to reply to this, just adding context for your understanding); I and many others regularly say hello to people and we do our best to be polite and friendly around the space. In standing for for a position in which you intend to represent the membership, you have a responsibility to engage with them. I'm not bashing the candidates, it's just that I'm in the space 3-4 days a week and that the majority of the candidates are unrecognisable to me is bizarre. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that very little effort has been made to reach out and question what the wider membership wants to see achieved by the trustees going forward, a missed opportunity perhaps. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Ant Invent]

This is clearly not going to end if we keep trying to clear up gaps in previous posters' misinterpretations of what we've said.

The take home point is that this is an exceptional event being handled with zero transparency. Because of this trust is being undermined. This should be addressed.

[Adrian Godwin]

The trustees, hopefully, don't want to achieve anything except the smooth running of the space. I voted against anyone who didn't make that a priority.

Achieving change, where desired, is a job for the wider membership, not a small closed group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[tgreer]

It's not an exceptional events, and it's not being handled with 0 transparency.

Any information given out about an incident can be easily used to identify the complainant. We've seen examples before where people have been harassed when they've made complaints.

[Adrian Godwin]

As several people have already pointed out, you can't have that level of transparency while retaining privacy. I'm curious about the details too, but I recognise that we solve this problem by choosing trustworthy people to solve it privately.

They've done that.

We had a long discussion last year about the greivance procedure and how it might be improved. No useful changes came out of that - anything sufficiently general was headed towards something like a lawcourt which was completely

over the top for the problem.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Akki]

I will speak, as I'm no longer a member.

When Scooby first joined the Hackspace, we had a misunderstanding that escalated VERY quickly and very wrongly. That was October 2012. He was only given an informal warning for this so it's not in the LHS records. He has since had formal warnings. To me, this shows repeat behaviour and an unwillingness to comply to the code of conduct. He has literally had 4 years to figure out what he was doing wrong and learn how to treat others in the Hackspace.

If you really want to harass people who complain about others behaviour, email me. We'll have a nice little email chat about intimidation and how it feels and how just because victims aren't coming forward, doesn't mean they don't exist or the perpetrator is sin-free or the event didn't happen. Things happen; you are not always there to witness it.

~Akki

[Mr Ed]

On Monday, 5 December 2016 15:38:39 UTC, Ant Invent wrote:

We clearly have different definitions of "hell hole"... I was referring to the endemic flaming and bullying, not people disagreeing with one another.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you here but you're missing the point entirely - it's about transparency, nothing more nothing less.

 

It's quite an exceptional event for someone to be banned while they're standing for election, I think on that we can all agree.

No, I don't agree. Bans themselves are pretty rare, and the intersection of "people who have ever been banned" and "people who have ever run for Trustee" is even smaller. There's far too little data to make a judgement.

The other problem is that treating the elections as somehow different is a bad idea. Because if behaviour is OK during an election, then why isn't it OK the rest of the time. And by behaviour, I mean anything on either side: either from the person banned or behaviour during the enaction of the ban. For example if more sharing of information was OK in this case, it should be done regardless of whether there was an election on. Likewise, if someone needs to be banned, then giving them an extra few weeks is not a good idea outside the election and so it's not a good idea during it.

And finally so what if they had waited until the election was over? Even if he got elected, then he wouldn't be sitting on the committee because he's the subject of the grievance and so it would be more or less the same people as before deciding on the action. So, waiting makes little difference.

TL;DR: I can't see any reasonable circumstances when something should be done different during an election.


-Ed