[CALL TO ACTION] Deliberate and unacceptable manipulation with election process
565 views
Skip to first unread message
Stefan Sabo
Dec 4, 2016, 7:05:11 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
Dear Members,
as you could to know from ML announcement, recently was uses Grievance procedure to issue BAN for 12 months against one of regular member and candidate at ongoing election process to trustees position.
This Grievance procedure was initially open by another two members, also candidates to Trustees position.
Something like this is delivered to membership as CONFIDENT result of Grievance procedure.
I can't comply with this decision at all for this reasons:
1) Two active candidates use Grievance procedure to strike off another candidate.
This is not allowed at any democracy!
This is only another result of toxic behaviour at space.
This coming from least one person, which was at out banned for unacceptable behaviour similar, which is accusing to Scooby. And I personally don't feel as his acting was changed at time.
This coming from representant of 2 maintainers groups, exactly from 3D printers and Laser Cutter.
Both this maintainers groups acting long time as private companies within space, without provide necessary transparency.
Here need to add, as Laser Cutter maintainers grow up within last weeks (mostly months) and they come close to requested level of it. There is very big upgrade, and need to be mentioned.
2) Trustees back up this deliberate strike off by their Grievance procedure.
It's another issue as Grievance procedure like it is now, could be easily used for friends apart any other member who is taken as enemy. It's exactly happened at this time.
Russ publicly stated, as he is not part of this Grievance procedure resolution...
How IS possible, as something, which could change election results by own, is taken into consideration only as part of directors.
I would like know PUBLICLY who vote for ban, who against and who is not involved at all.
Members need to know it and it's their right.
At least is very interesting, as procedure, which usually is very ineffective and slow, was taken within hours and very quickly.
Another result of two level membership?
3) At extreme way, there is reason to call for AGM / EGM and ask to calm to lost confidence of part or all actual trustees.
This should be question for more wide debate. I don't feel now with limited information as it's necessary, but could be possible to call it.
Disclaimer: Everybody know, as I Publicly back up 3 candidates at this ongoing election and one of them was Scooby. I don't think as he is able to be elected, but I wish as to be. He is complicated person, but however I call some of his actions "idiotic" and have not problem say him as he is "IdIot" and have different views on some actions, I don't feel as he acting like to need to be banned. I feel more likely as someone exploited his close position to some of the trustees as person as as friend to do this.
Disclaimer: I am aware, as after this I could awaiting another action against me. If this happens, I would like at ahead say thank you all good people at space, which have genuine interest to make it better. I find lot of friends within least to 13 months at space. I find lot of problems, which not have all easy solutions. Bit this space could be amazing and provide big service to hackers and makers community. Instead to work closely to solve any problems, there is wars within privileged members and friends, against other. Within last weeks I repeatedly publicly ask for some information about (not only)laser Cutter, always was refused or forgotten, or ignored. It's something, which need to me changed, transparency at place which have 1269 different mind and background members is something, which should be Nr 1.
4th DEC 2016 at 11:56 AM GMT
as you could to know from ML announcement, recently was uses Grievance procedure to issue BAN for 12 months against one of regular member and candidate at ongoing election process to trustees position.
This Grievance procedure was initially open by another two members, also candidates to Trustees position.
Something like this is delivered to membership as CONFIDENT result of Grievance procedure.
I can't comply with this decision at all for this reasons:
1) Two active candidates use Grievance procedure to strike off another candidate.
This is not allowed at any democracy!
This is only another result of toxic behaviour at space.
This coming from least one person, which was at out banned for unacceptable behaviour similar, which is accusing to Scooby. And I personally don't feel as his acting was changed at time.
This coming from representant of 2 maintainers groups, exactly from 3D printers and Laser Cutter.
Both this maintainers groups acting long time as private companies within space, without provide necessary transparency.
Here need to add, as Laser Cutter maintainers grow up within last weeks (mostly months) and they come close to requested level of it. There is very big upgrade, and need to be mentioned.
2) Trustees back up this deliberate strike off by their Grievance procedure.
It's another issue as Grievance procedure like it is now, could be easily used for friends apart any other member who is taken as enemy. It's exactly happened at this time.
Russ publicly stated, as he is not part of this Grievance procedure resolution...
How IS possible, as something, which could change election results by own, is taken into consideration only as part of directors.
I would like know PUBLICLY who vote for ban, who against and who is not involved at all.
Members need to know it and it's their right.
At least is very interesting, as procedure, which usually is very ineffective and slow, was taken within hours and very quickly.
Another result of two level membership?
3) At extreme way, there is reason to call for AGM / EGM and ask to calm to lost confidence of part or all actual trustees.
This should be question for more wide debate. I don't feel now with limited information as it's necessary, but could be possible to call it.
Disclaimer: Everybody know, as I Publicly back up 3 candidates at this ongoing election and one of them was Scooby. I don't think as he is able to be elected, but I wish as to be. He is complicated person, but however I call some of his actions "idiotic" and have not problem say him as he is "IdIot" and have different views on some actions, I don't feel as he acting like to need to be banned. I feel more likely as someone exploited his close position to some of the trustees as person as as friend to do this.
Disclaimer: I am aware, as after this I could awaiting another action against me. If this happens, I would like at ahead say thank you all good people at space, which have genuine interest to make it better. I find lot of friends within least to 13 months at space. I find lot of problems, which not have all easy solutions. Bit this space could be amazing and provide big service to hackers and makers community. Instead to work closely to solve any problems, there is wars within privileged members and friends, against other. Within last weeks I repeatedly publicly ask for some information about (not only)laser Cutter, always was refused or forgotten, or ignored. It's something, which need to me changed, transparency at place which have 1269 different mind and background members is something, which should be Nr 1.
4th DEC 2016 at 11:56 AM GMT
Tim Reynolds
Dec 4, 2016, 7:18:23 AM12/4/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
A) There is a grand conspiracy involving all trustees, people who are up
for election, the secret IRC cabal, the mailing list and the freemasons
to remove a list of people from the space.
B) A member who has been banned for their agressive behaviour in the
past is unable to change their behaviour and is agressive again during a
spurt of activity while trying to get elected.
What is more likely?
for election, the secret IRC cabal, the mailing list and the freemasons
to remove a list of people from the space.
B) A member who has been banned for their agressive behaviour in the
past is unable to change their behaviour and is agressive again during a
spurt of activity while trying to get elected.
What is more likely?
Simon Howes
Dec 4, 2016, 7:32:44 AM12/4/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Oh for the love of fucking god
--
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.
Paddy Duncan
Dec 4, 2016, 7:41:16 AM12/4/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
When I get back from my weekend away I shall answer point by point, but for
now I'll give you the tl/dr.
This is utter bollocks.
Paddy
----------
On 4 December 2016 12:05:51 p.m. Stefan Sabo
now I'll give you the tl/dr.
This is utter bollocks.
Paddy
----------
On 4 December 2016 12:05:51 p.m. Stefan Sabo
> --
> 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.
> 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
Russ Garrett
Dec 4, 2016, 7:41:50 AM12/4/16
to London Hack Space
On 4 December 2016 at 11:56, Stefan Sabo <stefan.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Russ publicly stated, as he is not part of this Grievance procedure resolution...
> How IS possible, as something, which could change election results by own, is taken into consideration only as part of directors.
By way of clarification, although I thought I made it clear in the
> Russ publicly stated, as he is not part of this Grievance procedure resolution...
> How IS possible, as something, which could change election results by own, is taken into consideration only as part of directors.
original email, I did not participate in this resolution because I am
not a trustee. My term as trustee (along with Mentar's) ended on
Sunday November 20th in accordance with the constitution.
I am still running the election process as returning officer (a duty
which doesn't require me to be a trustee), as I am most familiar with
it, and I'm improving the documentation and rules for the process.
--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk
Stefan Sabo
Dec 4, 2016, 8:00:43 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
@russ Thanks for clarification.
@Paddy Thanks, not need to be in rush and I will invite more information. As I mentioned, this is based on my limited information and my view. Even, I hod my opinion which was wrote already.
@Paddy Thanks, not need to be in rush and I will invite more information. As I mentioned, this is based on my limited information and my view. Even, I hod my opinion which was wrote already.
Stephen Casey
Dec 4, 2016, 9:11:06 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
Reluctant as I am to add to the noise on this, increasingly depressing, mailing list, just for the purpose of balance, from what I've seen (on this list), heard (in the past, from people I consider to be entirely balanced, reasonable and trustworthy) I am very much inclined to consider the action of the Trustees in this matter to be appropriate. It's why we have them. The clue's in the name.
The bullshit on the list seems pretty much confined to a handful of people. Always the same people. The people who frequently reference their strong feeling that they need to represent the vast majority of the LHS membership as their reason for shouting bullshit. If they are representing the majority of the members, why do they not have more (any?!) public support for said bullshit? Maybe because it's just bullshit.
Stephen.
Charles Yarnold
Dec 4, 2016, 10:09:12 AM12/4/16
to Hackspace Mailing List
Hi Stephan,
You cite zero evidence for any of this. How do you think you know the source or content of any complaints?
Paddy's tldr sums up your post expertly, this is the best example of fud I have ever seen on the mailing list.
Best
Charles
--
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.
Stefan Sabo
Dec 4, 2016, 10:19:52 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
See another threads within last few hours / days...
You (Solexious) and Tgreer both alongside was step up against Scooby and accusing him with connection to his bam at past and directly threaten him.
There is no more need to take connection.
I will of course wait for Paddy explanation, St this case it is very necessary to make it clear.
And please, however my English is poor, my name is still same and should be nice when some people will learn it finally, you included :))
Štefan = Stefan (without punctuation) or if you wants Sierra Tango Echo Foxtrot Alpha November
Thank you...
You (Solexious) and Tgreer both alongside was step up against Scooby and accusing him with connection to his bam at past and directly threaten him.
There is no more need to take connection.
I will of course wait for Paddy explanation, St this case it is very necessary to make it clear.
And please, however my English is poor, my name is still same and should be nice when some people will learn it finally, you included :))
Štefan = Stefan (without punctuation) or if you wants Sierra Tango Echo Foxtrot Alpha November
Thank you...
Charles Yarnold
Dec 4, 2016, 10:27:06 AM12/4/16
to Hackspace Mailing List
So you have zero evidence, just your guesses. Yet you present your email as fact.
One of the many flaws in your email is that the 2 complainants are running for election, if you are correct in your guesses as to who made the complaints (and I'm not saying if you are or are not) I'm not a candidate for election!
So your email is written as fact, but is simply you ranting over what you would like to be true.
Charles Yarnold
Dec 4, 2016, 10:29:10 AM12/4/16
to Hackspace Mailing List
Aso thanks for the spelling lesson, will make sure the tell my dislexia that it needs to make an exception for you.
On 4 Dec 2016 15:19, "Stefan Sabo" <stefan.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter "Sci" Turpin
Dec 4, 2016, 10:39:54 AM12/4/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 04/12/2016 11:56, Stefan Sabo wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
*snip*
> Dear Members,
>
Please read my own reply to the Scooby ban thread, as I could re-state
every bit of it here.
> 3) At extreme way, there is reason to call for AGM / EGM and ask to
> calm to lost confidence of part or all actual trustees.
catastrophic to cohesion at the space right now and sabotage the
preparations we need to be making for the most difficult move in LHS
history. An AGM/EGM now vastly increases the odds of the space having to
dissolve at the end of this tenancy. As a prospective member of the
board of directors, you should really take that into account because
there's a chance that you will personally have to deal with the outcome.
If you want changes to the grievance procedure, no one needs to be a
director to do that. But make actual proposals rather than demanding
one-off exceptions to the existing procedure, because an exception gets
used as an permission the next time.
Samb1
Dec 4, 2016, 10:40:58 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
Stefan,
I think you're approach here is unjustified and is adding a lot of unnecessary toxicity to the situation.
I would really appreciate it if you held off on making such badly informed accusations. I feel like we've been quite accommodating to a lot of your misunderstandings and I think it's highly disrespectful to continue along these lines.
By all means propose an EGM if you think there are issues that can be constructively solved but I must suggest you also keep your own approach within the bounds of our code of conduct.
Stefan Sabo
Dec 4, 2016, 10:48:54 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
Correction must be made when I always make mistake which of you Timour or You (solexious) are which one...
It nothing change on situation, as candidate for trustee was treated by another candidate(s) publicly and shaken up Elections at all.
Still need to hold majority of my original post, except as there is only one competitor who deliberately accusing another candidate publicly, privately and also this way.
It nothing changed on situation, s relevsnt uestions about laser cutter and background are long timed ignored, or refused.
It's also nothing changed on my view, as per this, there is very big step up with LC maintainers team within communication with membership.
Dne neděle 4. prosince 2016 15:29:10 UTC Solexious napsal(a):
Charles Yarnold
Dec 4, 2016, 10:52:54 AM12/4/16
to Hackspace Mailing List
On 4 December 2016 at 15:41, Stefan Sabo <stefan.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
Correction must be made when I always make mistake which of you Timour or You (solexious) are which one...
It nothing change on situation, as candidate for trustee was treated by another candidate(s) publicly and shaken up Elections at all.
Still need to hold majority of my original post, except as there is only one competitor who deliberately accusing another candidate publicly, privately and also this way.
Yet you have zero evidence for any of this. Repeatedly claiming your speculations as fact doesn't make them so.
Stefan Sabo
Dec 4, 2016, 10:54:10 AM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
@samb1
You are really call to me stay within CoC at situation of, when another 2 members publicly and privately accusing Scooby repeatedly and treaten him?
Why I am asked to do, what you don't ask from them?
Especially, when one of them was also previously baned for same reason and never ever change really his approach?
I don't need more evidence about two level of access to membership.
I will wait to Paddy declaration at this cause.
I never will change my opinion and mind, as shaken up within election process was bad decision at all.
Have a nice evening all, going off for now.
You are really call to me stay within CoC at situation of, when another 2 members publicly and privately accusing Scooby repeatedly and treaten him?
Why I am asked to do, what you don't ask from them?
Especially, when one of them was also previously baned for same reason and never ever change really his approach?
I don't need more evidence about two level of access to membership.
I will wait to Paddy declaration at this cause.
I never will change my opinion and mind, as shaken up within election process was bad decision at all.
Have a nice evening all, going off for now.
Tim Reynolds
Dec 4, 2016, 10:58:43 AM12/4/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
You rarely seem to need evidence for any of your paranoid rantings.
Harry Streuli
Dec 4, 2016, 7:56:39 PM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
Flame wars like this are alienating new members, and will castrate any positive development of this hackspace moving forward. Please stop all these petty arguments (not limited to this thread, there have been many over the last few weeks).
Source: I am a new member, and this place feels like a fucking high school. I hate it.
Stefan Sabo
Dec 4, 2016, 9:38:48 PM12/4/16
to London Hackspace
@harry
Sometimes is hard to fight when:
- notonly my posts are under pernament moderation and if you publish something what not ft, mostly your post dissapear and not e published or will be published with very Big delay, when oponents surprisely have contra arguments already published.
- if you provide some evidence,such full copy of conversation at IRC, you are accused as you can't all take seriously, and "it's was kind of joke" etcetc etc.
For some people there is accusing other and threaten them kind of joke and they in the case of problem don't mean it seriously.
Yep, you are right as I am not really popular on ML, and it has own reasons, which are more logically then natural...
1) my wrote English is poor and sometimes it lead to mistakes and misunderstandings
2) I usually open my mouth and back up not popular themes. It brings of course bad blood.
Believe me, I am quite as I could be and lot of times more likely not going to debate.
My 2 big causes of recent are "Laser Cutter Gate" and now "Scooby gate"
And at both I hold my opinion, even at around LC I must admit as there was taken some changes, which leading to very positive future.
At "Scooby Gate" we, after this ban, which I still feel like deliberate abuse, can start speculate.
Scooby was at original results on 4th position with very very small difference from last elected person.
Is there any possibility, as issued ban within last, impkrtsnt weekend of election process could lead to feelings people like "I don't go waste my voice, I will out it to another candidate" and He lost? Same as there is opportunity as people support him because this and he overhead other candidates with big difference.
We can't get answer now...
And about warning to stay at CoC, I already post my reaction, but surprisely wasn't publish.
Is very interesting, as another members, who at other thread very strongly accusing and threaten other members are not asked for same, even, one of them was already banned for this behaviour and (this is very subjective) never ever change it.
Btw actual irc conversation told something like "lucky as nobody more popular stand up this time" and another irc conversation beforehand Scooby's ban was about "Can we stop him? can we ban him?" and some of people mentioned or active at this thread was involved in it.
As we knowv deliberstely it was happened...
I am going off and not more continue at this thread, Except publish evidence about what Inalready wrote or, react to Paddy explanation, which come later this week.
Monday, 5th Dec 2016 @ 01:50 AM GMT
pondělí 5. prosince 2016 0:56:39 UTC Harry Streuli napsal(a):
Sometimes is hard to fight when:
- notonly my posts are under pernament moderation and if you publish something what not ft, mostly your post dissapear and not e published or will be published with very Big delay, when oponents surprisely have contra arguments already published.
- if you provide some evidence,such full copy of conversation at IRC, you are accused as you can't all take seriously, and "it's was kind of joke" etcetc etc.
For some people there is accusing other and threaten them kind of joke and they in the case of problem don't mean it seriously.
Yep, you are right as I am not really popular on ML, and it has own reasons, which are more logically then natural...
1) my wrote English is poor and sometimes it lead to mistakes and misunderstandings
2) I usually open my mouth and back up not popular themes. It brings of course bad blood.
Believe me, I am quite as I could be and lot of times more likely not going to debate.
My 2 big causes of recent are "Laser Cutter Gate" and now "Scooby gate"
And at both I hold my opinion, even at around LC I must admit as there was taken some changes, which leading to very positive future.
At "Scooby Gate" we, after this ban, which I still feel like deliberate abuse, can start speculate.
Scooby was at original results on 4th position with very very small difference from last elected person.
Is there any possibility, as issued ban within last, impkrtsnt weekend of election process could lead to feelings people like "I don't go waste my voice, I will out it to another candidate" and He lost? Same as there is opportunity as people support him because this and he overhead other candidates with big difference.
We can't get answer now...
And about warning to stay at CoC, I already post my reaction, but surprisely wasn't publish.
Is very interesting, as another members, who at other thread very strongly accusing and threaten other members are not asked for same, even, one of them was already banned for this behaviour and (this is very subjective) never ever change it.
Btw actual irc conversation told something like "lucky as nobody more popular stand up this time" and another irc conversation beforehand Scooby's ban was about "Can we stop him? can we ban him?" and some of people mentioned or active at this thread was involved in it.
As we knowv deliberstely it was happened...
I am going off and not more continue at this thread, Except publish evidence about what Inalready wrote or, react to Paddy explanation, which come later this week.
Monday, 5th Dec 2016 @ 01:50 AM GMT
pondělí 5. prosince 2016 0:56:39 UTC Harry Streuli napsal(a):
Mark Steward
Dec 4, 2016, 9:51:08 PM12/4/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Stefan, please stop this. Your posts are under moderation because you tend to write stream-of-consciousness, and insist on writing many of them on your mobile without proof-reading. You've been asked to change this behaviour but refused. Trust me, I hate waking up in the morning to read through the half dozen messages you've sent in the early hours, and I'm sure the other moderators feel the same.
As for the election process, if you're waiting for Paddy's email, then please do so without fishing for reactions on the list. You might want to consider whether the number of people who placed Scooby last says something about his claimed suitability as a trustee:
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-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Peter "Sci" Turpin
Dec 5, 2016, 9:03:14 AM12/5/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I'd like to recommend that if/when we switch to Discourse, all posts
regarding warnings/bans get automatically locked for a 3-day cooling off
period before any replies are allowed.
On 05/12/2016 02:51, Mark Steward wrote:
> Stefan, please stop this. Your posts are under moderation because you
> tend to write stream-of-consciousness, and insist on writing many of
> them on your mobile without proof-reading. You've been asked to change
> this behaviour but refused. Trust me, I hate waking up in the morning to
> read through the half dozen messages you've sent in the early hours, and
> I'm sure the other moderators feel the same.
>
> As for the election process, if you're waiting for Paddy's email, then
> please do so without fishing for reactions on the list. You might want
> to consider whether the number of people who placed Scooby last says
> something about his claimed suitability as a trustee:
>
> https://rack.ms/b/bltgraph/
>
>
> Mark
>
> On 5 Dec 2016 02:38, "Stefan Sabo" <stefan.do...@gmail.com
> send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:london-hack-space%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.
regarding warnings/bans get automatically locked for a 3-day cooling off
period before any replies are allowed.
On 05/12/2016 02:51, Mark Steward wrote:
> Stefan, please stop this. Your posts are under moderation because you
> tend to write stream-of-consciousness, and insist on writing many of
> them on your mobile without proof-reading. You've been asked to change
> this behaviour but refused. Trust me, I hate waking up in the morning to
> read through the half dozen messages you've sent in the early hours, and
> I'm sure the other moderators feel the same.
>
> As for the election process, if you're waiting for Paddy's email, then
> please do so without fishing for reactions on the list. You might want
> to consider whether the number of people who placed Scooby last says
> something about his claimed suitability as a trustee:
>
> https://rack.ms/b/bltgraph/
>
>
> Mark
>
> On 5 Dec 2016 02:38, "Stefan Sabo" <stefan.do...@gmail.com
> <mailto:london-hack-space%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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-sp...@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.
Stefan Sabo
Dec 5, 2016, 11:31:48 AM12/5/16
to London Hackspace
@sci:
You calling about official option how to silene opposite or different views, opinions?
Because this was what exactly happened at this case...
Step #1 moderate and silene particular person
Step #2 eliminace this person with BAN
It should be normal, but not if person in question is candidate for Trustee and at final, this successfully strike him OFF from election process...
It's as own DANGEROUS precedent and can't be silented. People need to know transparent background why this was necessary and who was such scarry of option as Scooby could be succesfull at election...
Ok, my Execution have lots of mistskes and Big issue will be always as any argument will be strike d down as "it was only joke" "it wasn't meant like this"
There is technically not option to get real true, but there is option do not repeat this shit again next time. And you really wants to silent it?
Wow!
2:12 PM GMT
Dne pondělí 5. prosince 2016 14:03:14 UTC Sci napsal(a):
Peter "Sci" Turpin
Dec 5, 2016, 11:46:53 AM12/5/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I thought "3-day cooling off period" was pretty self-explanatory.
I am suggesting that when a topic that may cause volatile reactions
needs to be posted, there be a DELAY on ability to reply to it so we
avoid the knee-jerk rage-typing and get the cooler articulate responses
that happen after people have been able to think about it for a couple
of days.
I am suggesting that when a topic that may cause volatile reactions
needs to be posted, there be a DELAY on ability to reply to it so we
avoid the knee-jerk rage-typing and get the cooler articulate responses
that happen after people have been able to think about it for a couple
of days.
JJ
Dec 5, 2016, 2:12:56 PM12/5/16
to London Hackspace
What's to stop someone with a strong enough opinion from simply starting a new thread to rant in?
Lex Robinson
Dec 5, 2016, 2:17:13 PM12/5/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
The same thing that stops people breaking our CoC now: the threat of moderation or banning?
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, 19:12 JJ, <jj.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's to stop someone with a strong enough opinion from simply starting a new thread to rant in?
--
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.
JJ
Dec 5, 2016, 2:36:09 PM12/5/16
to London Hackspace
So no different to this list then or am I missing something?
Lex Robinson
Dec 5, 2016, 3:01:12 PM12/5/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Well, from what I understand the difference is that we currently do not have this rule and he is suggesting that we should have it.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 19:36 JJ <jj.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
So no different to this list then or am I missing something?
--
Peter "Sci" Turpin
Dec 5, 2016, 3:44:33 PM12/5/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, pretty much. Seems like a good way to prevent rage-typing, and a
3-day delay isn't censoring discussion, considering the length of bans.
3-day delay isn't censoring discussion, considering the length of bans.
Adrian Godwin
Dec 5, 2016, 3:47:44 PM12/5/16
to london-hack-space
I think what JJ was refrring to was that Peter suggested it could be done with Discourse.
This is true, though I don't think it's much different with the list : in either case, the poster would have to be already on moderation for the mods to preempt it (unless we had a specific board for grumbling about bans, which seems unlikely). There is a slight difference in that mods could retrospectively remove it, but that's not a feature I'd want to promote.--
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.
Paddy Duncan
Dec 5, 2016, 4:37:14 PM12/5/16
to london-h...@googlegroups.com, pad...@padski.co.uk
Hi There,
As promised, here we go.
Please note that this reply is not a collaborated effort by the Trustees.
If any of them take issue with any of this then I urge them to reply accordingly. My inline replies are indented with >>
-----Original Message-----
From: london-h...@googlegroups.com [mailto:london-h...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Sabo
Sent: 04 December 2016 11:57
To: London Hackspace <london-h...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [london-hack-space] [CALL TO ACTION] Deliberate and unacceptable manipulation with election process
Dear Members,
as you could to know from ML announcement, recently was uses Grievance procedure to issue BAN for 12 months against one of regular member and candidate at ongoing election process to trustees position.
>> Yes.
This Grievance procedure was initially open by another two members, also candidates to Trustees position.
>> No it was not. None of the complainants nor any of the people involved in the action are (were) candidates in the Election.
Something like this is delivered to membership as CONFIDENT result of Grievance procedure.
>> I'm not sure what you mean but it absolutely was as a result of applying the Grievance Procedure
I can't comply with this decision at all for this reasons:
>> Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this but the only way anyone can not comply with this is by not being a Hackspace member.
1) Two active candidates use Grievance procedure to strike off another candidate.
>> As above, no it was not candidates.
This is not allowed at any democracy!
>> An irrelevant statement as it is based on the above non-fact. I was going to go on about representative vs direct but .......
This is only another result of toxic behaviour at space.
>> Absolutely agree. Scooby's.
This coming from least one person, which was at out banned for unacceptable behaviour similar, which is accusing to Scooby. And I personally don't feel as his acting was changed at time.
>> As above, no it did not.
This coming from representant of 2 maintainers groups, exactly from 3D printers and Laser Cutter.
Both this maintainers groups acting long time as private companies within space, without provide necessary transparency.
Here need to add, as Laser Cutter maintainers grow up within last weeks (mostly months) and they come close to requested level of it. There is very big upgrade, and need to be mentioned.
>> No it did not, and no they have not.
2) Trustees back up this deliberate strike off by their Grievance procedure.
It's another issue as Grievance procedure like it is now, could be easily used for friends apart any other member who is taken as enemy. It's exactly happened at this time.
>> Utter bullshit. As I keep repeating, the Trustees alone enacted this.
Russ publicly stated, as he is not part of this Grievance procedure resolution...
How IS possible, as something, which could change election results by own, is taken into consideration only as part of directors.
>> If you mean here (I'm guessing a bit) that you think the Trustees should involve others in the decision, that is not how it works. The Trustees are voted in here for (amongst other things), the very purpose of making such decisions. That it happened during the election is an unfortunate coincidence, but ultimately irrelevant. In my personal opinion though, it happened during the election due to being part of a seriously flawed election campaigning technique.
I would like know PUBLICLY who vote for ban, who against and who is not involved at all.
Members need to know it and it's their right.
>> 1 of the Trustees was unavailable, the remaining 4 were unanimous. As stated before, no one else was involved at all.
At least is very interesting, as procedure, which usually is very ineffective and slow, was taken within hours and very quickly.
Another result of two level membership?
>> Yes we often discuss and argue about things for yonks.
>> In this case we all came to the same conclusion before having even discussed it; there was no dissenting, no differing opinion to deliberate over.
>> And as Sci commented quite correctly, the only thing left to discuss was the question of just what size of shitstorm we would prefer, and we chose (hopefully) what we considered to be the lesser.
3) At extreme way, there is reason to call for AGM / EGM and ask to calm to lost confidence of part or all actual trustees.
This should be question for more wide debate. I don't feel now with limited information as it's necessary, but could be possible to call it.
>> Anyone can call an EGM with the support of 5% of the membership.
>> If what you say happened was what actually happened, I would highly recommend calling for an EGM and it would receive my full support. But it is not what happened.
Disclaimer: Everybody know, as I Publicly back up 3 candidates at this ongoing election and one of them was Scooby. I don't think as he is able to be elected, but I wish as to be. He is complicated person, but however I call some of his actions "idiotic" and have not problem say him as he is "IdIot" and have different views on some actions, I don't feel as he acting like to need to be banned. I feel more likely as someone exploited his close position to some of the trustees as person as as friend to do this.
>> Do I read this correctly, that you support someone you consider an idiot for Trustee? I'm lost for words now.
>> But I digress... Regarding the final sentence, I repeat again, no one exploited any such friendship.
Disclaimer: I am aware, as after this I could awaiting another action against me. If this happens, I would like at ahead say thank you all good people at space, which have genuine interest to make it better. I find lot of friends within least to 13 months at space. I find lot of problems, which not have all easy solutions. Bit this space could be amazing and provide big service to hackers and makers community. Instead to work closely to solve any problems, there is wars within privileged members and friends, against other. Within last weeks I repeatedly publicly ask for some information about (not only)laser Cutter, always was refused or forgotten, or ignored. It's something, which need to me changed, transparency at place which have 1269 different mind and background members is something, which should be Nr 1.
>> Well I dunno, could repeatedly posting unfounded accusations and outright bollocks incur the wrath of the Grievance procedure? Has it happened to anyone recently? Sorry I'm digressing again...
>> On the subject of transparency: A quote (written today) from Henry, one of the new Trustees; "after spending the morning browsing through 4 years worth of logs, I can see exactly why the current transparency levels are what they are".
>> A lot of this information is very sensitive, and I do not think we need to spend our time discussing which bits to disclose or not. There will always be plenty we cannot, and when we don't, the claims of lack of transparency will follow.
>> In short, this action was taken in response to relentless shit-stirring, while simultaneously claiming to some kind of Hackspace saviour (from the evil and corrupt Trustee cabal).
>> His in-person election campaigning technique was shit-stirring with a smile, and the blurb in the candidate list was half bullshit.
>> The Trustees (in my opinion) have been exceptional in their reserve, by not highlighting these things in the run-up to nor during the election, as they thought it unfair.
>> Yes it was discussed, as well as it being recommended to us by extremely moderate and reasonable people.
>> Finally, I'd like to point out that among the Trustees I could be referred to as 'that pain in the arse who keeps opposing bans'.
>> I've done it a lot, as well as being quite a thorn in the side when I've considered any proposed action to be unfair or unreasonable. But still this was a no-brainer.
Paddy
As promised, here we go.
Please note that this reply is not a collaborated effort by the Trustees.
If any of them take issue with any of this then I urge them to reply accordingly. My inline replies are indented with >>
-----Original Message-----
From: london-h...@googlegroups.com [mailto:london-h...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Sabo
Sent: 04 December 2016 11:57
To: London Hackspace <london-h...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [london-hack-space] [CALL TO ACTION] Deliberate and unacceptable manipulation with election process
Dear Members,
as you could to know from ML announcement, recently was uses Grievance procedure to issue BAN for 12 months against one of regular member and candidate at ongoing election process to trustees position.
This Grievance procedure was initially open by another two members, also candidates to Trustees position.
Something like this is delivered to membership as CONFIDENT result of Grievance procedure.
I can't comply with this decision at all for this reasons:
1) Two active candidates use Grievance procedure to strike off another candidate.
This is not allowed at any democracy!
This is only another result of toxic behaviour at space.
This coming from least one person, which was at out banned for unacceptable behaviour similar, which is accusing to Scooby. And I personally don't feel as his acting was changed at time.
This coming from representant of 2 maintainers groups, exactly from 3D printers and Laser Cutter.
Both this maintainers groups acting long time as private companies within space, without provide necessary transparency.
Here need to add, as Laser Cutter maintainers grow up within last weeks (mostly months) and they come close to requested level of it. There is very big upgrade, and need to be mentioned.
2) Trustees back up this deliberate strike off by their Grievance procedure.
It's another issue as Grievance procedure like it is now, could be easily used for friends apart any other member who is taken as enemy. It's exactly happened at this time.
Russ publicly stated, as he is not part of this Grievance procedure resolution...
How IS possible, as something, which could change election results by own, is taken into consideration only as part of directors.
I would like know PUBLICLY who vote for ban, who against and who is not involved at all.
Members need to know it and it's their right.
At least is very interesting, as procedure, which usually is very ineffective and slow, was taken within hours and very quickly.
Another result of two level membership?
>> In this case we all came to the same conclusion before having even discussed it; there was no dissenting, no differing opinion to deliberate over.
>> And as Sci commented quite correctly, the only thing left to discuss was the question of just what size of shitstorm we would prefer, and we chose (hopefully) what we considered to be the lesser.
3) At extreme way, there is reason to call for AGM / EGM and ask to calm to lost confidence of part or all actual trustees.
This should be question for more wide debate. I don't feel now with limited information as it's necessary, but could be possible to call it.
>> If what you say happened was what actually happened, I would highly recommend calling for an EGM and it would receive my full support. But it is not what happened.
Disclaimer: Everybody know, as I Publicly back up 3 candidates at this ongoing election and one of them was Scooby. I don't think as he is able to be elected, but I wish as to be. He is complicated person, but however I call some of his actions "idiotic" and have not problem say him as he is "IdIot" and have different views on some actions, I don't feel as he acting like to need to be banned. I feel more likely as someone exploited his close position to some of the trustees as person as as friend to do this.
>> But I digress... Regarding the final sentence, I repeat again, no one exploited any such friendship.
Disclaimer: I am aware, as after this I could awaiting another action against me. If this happens, I would like at ahead say thank you all good people at space, which have genuine interest to make it better. I find lot of friends within least to 13 months at space. I find lot of problems, which not have all easy solutions. Bit this space could be amazing and provide big service to hackers and makers community. Instead to work closely to solve any problems, there is wars within privileged members and friends, against other. Within last weeks I repeatedly publicly ask for some information about (not only)laser Cutter, always was refused or forgotten, or ignored. It's something, which need to me changed, transparency at place which have 1269 different mind and background members is something, which should be Nr 1.
>> On the subject of transparency: A quote (written today) from Henry, one of the new Trustees; "after spending the morning browsing through 4 years worth of logs, I can see exactly why the current transparency levels are what they are".
>> A lot of this information is very sensitive, and I do not think we need to spend our time discussing which bits to disclose or not. There will always be plenty we cannot, and when we don't, the claims of lack of transparency will follow.
>> In short, this action was taken in response to relentless shit-stirring, while simultaneously claiming to some kind of Hackspace saviour (from the evil and corrupt Trustee cabal).
>> His in-person election campaigning technique was shit-stirring with a smile, and the blurb in the candidate list was half bullshit.
>> The Trustees (in my opinion) have been exceptional in their reserve, by not highlighting these things in the run-up to nor during the election, as they thought it unfair.
>> Yes it was discussed, as well as it being recommended to us by extremely moderate and reasonable people.
>> Finally, I'd like to point out that among the Trustees I could be referred to as 'that pain in the arse who keeps opposing bans'.
>> I've done it a lot, as well as being quite a thorn in the side when I've considered any proposed action to be unfair or unreasonable. But still this was a no-brainer.
Paddy
frank filardo
Dec 7, 2016, 8:19:14 AM12/7/16
to London Hackspace
Trustees, moderators et,al.
Please try not emote when responding to threads like this.
I am sure you guys absorb a lot of stress from performing your duties - but the more you can absorb it and the less you can reflect it (the stress) the better for everyone. Thanks for all your hard work.
Please try not emote when responding to threads like this.
I am sure you guys absorb a lot of stress from performing your duties - but the more you can absorb it and the less you can reflect it (the stress) the better for everyone. Thanks for all your hard work.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages