I don't see a problem with asking people not to do things. I don't see why before this weeks meeting we send out a message saying something along the lines of if you are going to have a beer out two save it for after the meeting . and if you choose to drink during the meeting that is un excellent to the rest of the hakkers in the meeting. Hopefully people respect that. Which I feel like most of our regulars will. And also state that it is un excellent to operate the heavy duty tools while drinking On Mar 10, 2014 9:44 AM, "Torrie Fischer" <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 10, 2014 07:44:07 Omar Rassi wrote: > > Okay, so what this really sounds like is a problem between a few > > individuals about an isolated instant involving one person. This can be > > resolved individually with mediation (if necessary)instead of with > > legislation. Is this now grounds for policy creation? If so, I'd like to > > outline a few other points that could fall in this realm: > > > > 1: The parking lot across the street is private parking and does not > belong > > to Synhak. People who park there but are not authorized to do so may be > > towed. Do we need to have a parking policy now? > > > > 2: The military recruiting office is 50ft from our door, there is no > > smoking within 50ft of a government building. Do we need designated > smoking > > areas? > > > > 3: I've seen people pull out their personal laptops to show me something > > and in the background I see a torrent application running. They could be > > downloading cracked operating systems, music, movies, TV shows (all of > > which I've heard discussed at Synhak) which is illegal and logged on our > ip > > address. Do we need an acceptable use policy to use our internet access? > > > > Devin, > > > > I'm not trying to side-step your suggestion, I'm not even against the > idea > > of saying we don't condone that type of thing (because, really, I don't > > condone it so long as it remains against the law). What you're suggestion > > is indicative of the fact that there is no formal statement from Synhak > on > > the subject. I'm trying to come up with a resolution that doesn't come > off > > as "Synhak has a substance problem" (because Synhak does NOT), that > > protects the organization's interest, and requires little effort to > > implement or the need to go back and change as society changes. What I > > don't want is to foster a climate where if a person has a problem with > > something or someone, that they point their finger and say "You fix it." > It > > is the antithesis of a hackerspace. Individual responsibility and > community > > are paramount at Synhak and using the board to address minor issues > between > > a few individuals with general legislation is a detriment to future of > how > > Synhak is governed/operates. The only time the police should ever be > > involved at Synhak is when someone refuses to leave when asked by a > > Champion or other officer. > > Since the dawn of time, we've all stressed that the board exists simply so > that SYNHAK, Inc exists as a legal entity in the eyes of the State of Ohio. > The Membership has always been in charge. > > I mean, whats the point of having weekly meetings, consensus, champions, > mediation, excellence, and everything else associated with our governance > process if the board feels that they're free to jump in at any time and > decide > what is best for us all? > > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Torrie Fischer > <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 09, 2014 22:57:13 Michael Griesacker wrote: > > > > in regards to the recent incident last tuesday, and, if memory > serves, > > > > there were two incidents with the same individual, was that member > asked > > > > > > to > > > > > > > leave, and did someone sit down with that member the next day or > after > > > > > > and > > > > > > > discuss their inappropriate behavior? > > > > > > I would assume "No". > > > > > > If someone gets asked to leave or a issue of unacceptable behavior does > > > need > > > brought up within the community, I'd expect to see it on discuss@. > > > > > > You can't really ask someone to leave and *not* tell everyone else that > > > they're not allowed to stick around. > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Torrie Fischer > > > > > > <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, March 09, 2014 17:35:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > I feel that my suggestion was side stepped completely. > > > > > > After receiving multiple verbal complaints, and a written formal > > > > > > > > > > complaint I > > > > > > > > > > > feel this has become a problem. Your suggestion doesn't allow > SYNHAK > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > really say anything other than "bad hacker, think about what you > > > > > > have > > > > > > done". I don't want to see it degrade to people calling the > police > > > > > > > > > > instead > > > > > > > > > > > of calmly resolving any issues within Synhak. The policy has > nothing > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > with adult alcohol consumption or behavior as that is subject to > > > > > > opinion > > > > > > > > > and point of view. With this policy we can calmly and internally > > > > > > quell > > > > > > > > Sorry, I re-read this and just about spat my tea on my laptop. > > > > > > > > > > "Internally quell"? > > > > > > > > > > Devin, SYNHAK is an organization that values communication and > > > > > transparency. > > > > > This has never changed in the last two years. > > > > > > > > > > If someone has a complaint about another participant in the > community, > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > solution is to get the two together and hash out their > differences. If > > > > > someone > > > > > had come and complained to me that another member was doing > something > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > didn't approve of, I would be sure to get the two together in a > safe > > > > > > space > > > > > > > > and > > > > > mediate. Somehow that hasn't actually needed to happen 'till all > this > > > > > boiled > > > > > over. I think we should consider ourselves quite lucky. > > > > > > > > > > I've received some pretty nasty e-mails from individuals regarding > > > > > misunderstandings about my financial reporting. So I talked with > Chris > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > he's tried to reach out and get some mediation going. I think that > was > > > > > maybe > > > > > 2-3 weeks ago. From what I can tell they're still upset and not > > > > > > telling me > > > > > > > > or > > > > > Chris why that is. I say that because neither of us have heard > back. > > > > > > > > > > "Internally quell" really comes off like a non-statement. This drug > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > idea appears to be an attempt to wave some hands and hope the > problem > > > > > > goes > > > > > > > > away without actually connecting the people in question to resolve > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > differences. > > > > > > > > > > Can I start complaining to you about the disrespect I get from > various > > > > > people? > > > > > Is the solution to that an anti-harassment policy that just > reiterates > > > > > > "Be > > > > > > > > Excellent To Others" without actually addressing the underlying > issue > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > people thinking its OK to fill my day to day interactions with > misery? > > > > > > > > > > No, not really. Nothing would change. > > > > > > > > > > I really want to get back to hacking. I'm tired of all this > infighting > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > hearing whispers that people don't like me all while they refuse to > > > > > > talk > > > > > > > > to me > > > > > about their issues even after directly asking them to do so. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please try to resolve these tensions in a proven manner > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > > > making big empty statements of "drugs are bad, mmmkay?" If you > want, > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > be > > > > > more than happy to bring in some professional mediators. I'll even > pay > > > > > them if > > > > > thats what is needed. > > > > > > > > > > For some perspective of where I'm coming from, I'll bring up this > > > > > quote > > > > > that > > > > > I've always looked back at regarding SYNHAK's governance and my > ever > > > > > vigilant > > > > > fight against more rules: > > > > > > > > > > For we're excellent to each other here > > > > > We rarely ever block > > > > > We value tools over pre-emptive rules > > > > > And spurn the key and the lock. > > > > > > > > > > -- Danny O'Brien, 2010-11-09 general meeting notes, > Noisebridge > > > > > > > > > > > > these situations. If this is a matter best suited for the police, > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > should be the course of action the next time this situation > arises. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Devin Wolfe > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > Discuss@synhak.org > > > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > Discuss@synhak.org > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
