Grievance procedure update - Phil Roy banned for 3 months

[London Hackspace Trustees]

Dear Members,

We regretfully inform you that Phil Roy has been banned from London Hackspace for a period of 3 months for the following:

Using a members card to continue accessing the hackspace as a non-member.
Repeatedly sleeping in the space.
Excessive storage outside of the storage system.

This ban will start on 01/03/18 00:00 and end on 31st May 23:59

He will no longer be able to access the premises.

It is the duty of all members to follow the rules of the hackspace.

Regards,
The London Hackspace Trustees

[David Murphy]

To be clear is this Phil the trustee Phil?  

He wasn't a member? 

--
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.

[Lex Robinson]

From my understandings of the articles of association, under 30.b, any trustee who stops paying membership dues also automatically resigns as a trustee - so I guess former trustee Phil

[tgreer]

Correct.

On Friday, 1 March 2019 08:58:51 UTC, David wrote:

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

[henry...@ntlworld.com]

Why did he not get a warning, as per the constitution?

Henry Best

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

[Nigel Worsley]

> Why did he not get a warning, as per the constitution?

How do you know he didn't? Normally only the second warning is made
public, but this is at the discression of the trustees.

Nigle

[Billy]

I thought that making the second warning public was mandatory.

It has been done in all of the previous times that members were banned.

[Bill Burman]

But he wasn't a member, in which case I can't see why any warning would be necessary. Unless the constitution covers grievance procedures for non members, which would be an odd situation...

--

[Billy]

If it covers non-members, then TGreer should have been sanctioned as well, as he was breaking the community guidelines on the IRC channel when he was not a member.

If the rules have to be applied, then they have to be applied consistently.

[Lex Robinson]

Perhaps those who enforce the rules should be held to a higher standard?

I mean, Phil has been openly sleeping in the Hackspace for years - it's not like he just happened to drop off for 5 minutes and instantly got banned. This is practically a year long spree of rules trashing that people have just ignored because it's Phil doing it.

Using someone else's card to sleep in the Hackspace while not being a member is an impressively egregious set of rule violations and there would be 0 complaints and possibly calls for a longer ban if it was literally anyone other than Phil who did it.

[Andrew Jenkins]

You’re acting as if you’re running a billion dollar company, not a hobbyist space.

Phil is probably the most committed person to Hackspace and you’re banning him on a technicality because you’re obviously at disagreement.  The fact that you’ve banned him and are citing the rule book to the entire memberlist seems pathetic. 

This is very uninspiring to me and I’m sure many in the Hackspace community and unless I’m missing something and Phil has actually caused some serious problems; whoever’s behind this should be embarrassed.

[tgreer]

Care to share? I'm not aware, but then I wasn't on the IRC for about 2 years when I wasn't a member...

[David Murphy]

*shrug*, people do tend to get more leeway when they're also very nice and helpful.

But ya, can't really argue with the sleeping thing, like at all. Kinda got him dead to rights.

Still seems weird that his membership lapsed and it not just being a glitch or transaction issue.

Also the trustee list needs updating.

https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Organisation/Trustees

[Lex Robinson]

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 10:00:05 UTC, Lex Robinson wrote:

[...] This is practically a year long spree of rules trashing that people have just ignored because it's Phil doing it. [...]

Apologies for the typo there, the Hackspace has hardly been in a state where anyone could sleep in it for the past year. I of course meant "years long spree". 

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 12:02:28 UTC, Andrew Jenkins wrote:

You’re acting as if you’re running a billion dollar company, not a hobbyist space.

Phil is probably the most committed person to Hackspace and you’re banning him on a technicality because you’re obviously at disagreement.  The fact that you’ve banned him and are citing the rule book to the entire memberlist seems pathetic. 

This is very uninspiring to me and I’m sure many in the Hackspace community and unless I’m missing something and Phil has actually caused some serious problems; whoever’s behind this should be embarrassed.

Bear in mind that sleeping in an industrial premises is illegal and in violation of our lease. I like Phil as much as the next person, but for a legal director of the company to do that sort of thing is pretty irresponsible. 

[tgreer]

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 13:57:01 UTC, David wrote:

Also the trustee list needs updating.

https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Organisation/Trustees

Fixed. 

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:00 AM Lex Robinson <mwa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps those who enforce the rules should be held to a higher standard?

I mean, Phil has been openly sleeping in the Hackspace for years - it's not like he just happened to drop off for 5 minutes and instantly got banned. This is practically a year long spree of rules trashing that people have just ignored because it's Phil doing it.

Using someone else's card to sleep in the Hackspace while not being a member is an impressively egregious set of rule violations and there would be 0 complaints and possibly calls for a longer ban if it was literally anyone other than Phil who did it.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019, 08:56 Billy, <bi...@billycomputersmith.com> wrote:

If it covers non-members, then TGreer should have been sanctioned as well, as he was breaking the community guidelines on the IRC channel when he was not a member.

If the rules have to be applied, then they have to be applied consistently.

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:32:51 AM UTC, Bill Burman wrote:

But he wasn't a member, in which case I can't see why any warning would be necessary. Unless the constitution covers grievance procedures for non members, which would be an odd situation...

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 06:28, Billy <bi...@billycomputersmith.com> wrote:

I thought that making the second warning public was mandatory.

It has been done in all of the previous times that members were banned.

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 5:25:00 PM UTC, Nigle wrote:

> Why did he not get a warning, as per the constitution?

How do you know he didn't? Normally only the second warning is made
public, but this is at the discression of the trustees.

Nigle

--
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.

--
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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.

[Adrian Godwin]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:10 PM tgreer <ukt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Care to share? I'm not aware, but then I wasn't on the IRC for about 2 years when I wasn't a member...

I'm fairly sure you were on IRC at some times while not a member. However that isn't itself an abuse (non-members are very welcome on IRC) and I don't recall any particular abusive behaviour . Happy to be corrected.

[Adrian Godwin]

Overall, I'm not really happy to have it discussed on the mailing list by people with less than full information about the circumstances of banning. If you object to the trustee action, take it to the trustees who will doubtless give you full information in private.

I like Phil, and he think he puts a lot of effort into the hackspace. I'm also sad that the rule against sleeping exists, but I know it was for a good reason. If we didn't have that rule I think Phil should be very able to take advantage of it : he wasn't the reason to have it and his sleeping doesn't cause the problems that the rule was invented to solve.

But we do have it, and he does ignore it, and has done for a while. If the trustees feel they need to take action over that and other infractions (all of which probably have their reasons but may well be against specific rules) then I think they should be able to do it. I'm assured that the proper procedure was followed (I was doubtful and I did ask) and I believe that.

If you think the rule should exist in a form that allows Phil his lifestyle, propose a fair replacement that does that and have it voted into use. Until then, the rule exists as a simple 'no sleeping'.  Don't make a special case for a particular individual because of his other qualities.

It's a pity that Phil got banned but I don't think it's unfair. I hope he'll come back and work within hackspace practice. And note that he has some other work within the building : if he's seen around it doesn't mean that he's breaking the ban.

[henry...@ntlworld.com]

I know Phil didn't get any (first or second) warning because he told me he didn't. Warnings, whether they're made public or not, are not at the discretion of the trustees.

[tgreer]

That’s simply not true.

[Michael Cullen]

Like Adrian, I like Phil, however it’s very hard to argue against this and based on what I know, not incredibly surprising.

Remember sleeping (which he is very much guilty of despite the state the space has been in since we moved in) is only one of the issues raised.

I’m also not surprised he was not a member for some periods of time. Using another member’s card to get in isn’t really a good example for someone in his position to set, whatever the reason. 

I hope Phil will be back, and I also hope the enforced time away is good for him. Having worked in the space with him a lot, I have reason to believe it might be.

I trust that the set of trustees in place at the time the decision was made did it for the right reasons - and we have to - because we as the membership elected them to do so. 

We are not in possession of all of the facts so to be honest I think we should stop complaining here. That’s not to say we shouldn’t question the trustees sometimes, but I think this is probably not one of those times.

Michael

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 18:48, tgreer <ukt...@gmail.com> wrote:

That’s simply not true.

[henry...@ntlworld.com]

What, in my previous post, is untrue?

[Paddy Duncan]

Everything.

--

[Mark Steward]

Here's the guide to sleeping in the space:

  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/london-hack-space/KUD7ztlx8jA/1EMuTgaZBAAJ

Mark

--

[henry...@ntlworld.com]

Are you calling me a liar when I wrote that Phil had told me he hadn't received any warning?

Are you calling Phil a liar for telling me he hadn't received any warning?

Or are you just trying to cover up your failure to follow the correct procedure?

[Samb1]

Rules are rules and they are there to help the community function.

I'm sure this decision wasn't taken lightly.

And I haven't been around much lately..

But,

I'd just like to add to the voices vouching for Phil. I know of very few people who've selflessly given so much in terms of time and effort to make the space what it is.

I think the space will be losing a lot at a time when it needs to rebuild and trustees are probably as shorthanded as ever.

IMO for the sake of cost/benefit to Hackspace Ltd, the trustees should pay Phil to be a member :)