If we could keep discussion limited to the wording of the proposal at hand rather than whether sex = gender, white vs wheat, chocolate vs vanilla, or which side it's proper to butter your toast on that would be great.
regards, Andrew L On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steve Radonich IV <nesfr...@outlook.com>wrote: > >> Take me for example, I believe that if you are born a certain sex than > you > > >> will always be that sex, no matter what you do change your appearance on > >> the outside. > > > >Thats not a fight I'm getting in to. > > > >I'm done with this conversation. > > Good because that's not what this thread is intended for, but I can see you > completely refused to address my point > because I said something that you didn't like. Once again proving my point > that you are the one being closed minded > and un-excellent. > > >> To write on an m&m - consensus by each week changing a few swing voters > > >> until the minority that truly believes just quits for the good of the hive > >> - vs - if consensus cannot be reached within a few weeks vote and move on. > >> (It's a big m&m) > >> > >> You are never going to convince me to have all computers in the space be > >> linux, or to disown a member for acting in good faith. How is squelching > >> the minority with a vote different from doing so by wearing them down over > >> weeks/months? > > > >The consensus process isn't meant to wear someone down. If someone is > >repeatedly bringing up an issue that everyone else agrees does not benefit > >the > >space in any way, they need to realize that they are motivated by personal > >feelings and emotion more than a desire to contribute to the forward progress > >of the space. They should step aside. Making consensus work requires that > >everyone understands when they should step aside and instead focus on the > >space instead of personal wants. > > > >Refusing to acknowledge that is a perfectly valid reason to exclude someone > >from the consensus process. The group should kindly request that they either > >explain why they aren't motivated by personal reasons or else leave the > >community. > > Coming from the person that was fighting tooth and nail about the contract > with Justin's business when you were > pretty much the only one that had a problem with it and everyone else said it > was fine. That is pretty darned funny. > > > >> I agree entirely that consensus is the better option for most issues, but > >> what if, after a run of thefts from the space, a minimum income for > >> membership was proposed? The only way to convince me would be if my > >> holding out was destroying the space. > > > >If there is a run of thefts, a minimum income won't solve that. Diligence of > >the membership to make sure that you don't let people like that in is the > >solution. Should they happen to get in, it is up to all of us to stop someone > >from stealing things. > > > >That exact situation is even described on the wiki: > > > > Aren't you afraid of people abusing the free price? > > Not really. The first rule of SYNHAK is Be Excellent to Each Other. Since > > we are only open to non-members when members are present, it is up to the > > members who are there to protect the space against unsavory elements. > > Everyone is empowered to remove disruptive individuals if they are > > causing > > problems or otherwise getting in the way of others using the space. > >--https://synhak.org/wiki/When_we%27re_open > > I highly doubt Craig meant for this to be a real talking point in that's how > we would deal with thefts, but was > instead giving an example, how about you actually answer his question? > > > >> This doesn't happen with voting, after all negotiations are clearly > >> stalemated a vote happens and I loose. I take that I am in the minority, > >> decide if I can continue to associate myself, and if so, move on (All > >> within a month). Instead of, after months of being badgered,attacked,asked > >> why then shot down when I try to explain, all to get me to consense against > >> my morals & world view, leaving my key taped to the top of the microwave as > >> I am too hated to be an asset to the space anymore. > > > >If you are being badgered, attacked, and repeatedly shot down for bringing up > >a completely legitimate concern, you need to tell people about that. That is > >incredibly unexcellent behavior. I realize that the champions aren't supposed > >to handle these kinds of interpersonal conflicts, but talk to them. > > > >A Community Working Group would really solve that whole situation, but it is > >pretty obvious that some folks would rather have more rules instead of a > >pragmatic solution. I theorize that if we don't get a CWG established in the > >next two months, we will be in for a lot of pain. > > > >I mean, we're just over two years old and already have had a few people bug > >out and refuse to remain a part of the community because of poisonous people > >and conflict resolution was not even attempted. I've come close to that > >myself > >a few times. > > We have had discussions on a CWG and I think we all pretty much thought it > was unneeded, though I am open for that > discussion again, personally don't have a feeling on this one way or the > other. But you need to understand that > most of us are tired from the fight over Justin's company and feel completely > undercut by a very small minority of the > group who were completely wrong about an issue. > > > >> > >> On polarizing issues, such as a new member with views towards others > >> directly incompatible, however shares the same goals as the group, and are > >> house trained enough not to act on them: This is exactly what separates a > >> club from something for the public. If we get 100 members I can guarantee > >> a few of them are going to make me uncomfortable, key my car, and may sour > >> my entire synhak experience causing me to start missing meetings, and stay > >> away outside of my required Sundays. > > > >Thats no good! Not everyone would have that same reaction towards an > >incompatible person. Do we want to have someone bring up banning people every > >single week? Or throwing a huge fit on the mailing list for weeks at a time > >because of the issues? Or forking and starting another hackerspace that > >fragments the hacker community? Or a physical fight breaking out? > > > >Thats basically how the Double Union hackerspace started. A bunch of people > >got fed up with the rampant sexism and other Bad Things at Noisebridge, so > >they started their own space in the neighborhood. After about a month they > >had > >to close membership applications because they were completely totally flooded > >with newbies who were also fed up with Noisebridge. > > I have yet to hear anything about anyone wanting to ban anyone in the group > so I'm not really sure where this is > coming from here. We all get along even though we have different view points > and experiences in life. The only > un-excellent behavior in this regard has been yours to completely ignore the > view points of those you do not agree > with. We are a public resource and as such need to act like it, we are going > to have members with vastly different > views of our own and we just need to recognize that and get along inspite of > it. If there are those that can't then > they will have to be removed the group on an as needed basis, not bar people > who believe opposite of you out right. > > > >> > >> An issue that I haven't heard much talk about: How big do you(everybody) > >> want synhak to be? I won't start the quality vs quantity debate as that > >> line is different for everyone, I'll just coughf out (once again) if > >> everyone gets along we are a club of friends, not a public resource where > >> people with similar goals come to achieve and make. Is being everyone's > >> friend a requirement for membership? > > > >I want a safe place to hack. > > > >I don't care if everyone who uses the space is friends with everyone or not. > > > >I don't want to be a part of a community where I have to keep my guard up. > >Thats the fastest way to push me away from anything. We currently (mostly) > >have that. Theres folks who come to the space that I likely wouldn't invite > >to > >have a drink with, but they don't push me away and make me feel unsafe. I'm > >still able to have productive conversations with them without knowing that > >they don't see me as an equal. My ideas still share equal weight as anyone > >else's in their eyes. > > And yet you are against having anyone who might think differently about the > transgender community as a member of our space? > If that is how you feel then either we need to have a discussion on whether > we are going to discriminate against those > who have a set religious belief on an issue or not, because that is just as > wrong as discriminating against a transexual > in my book. > > > >There are a *lot* of people who aren't poisonous to the community. The vast > >overwhelming majority of humans fit into that group. > > > >We can have an unlimited number of members. I'd love for that. As an example, > >I think KDE has something in the number of a few hundred contributors across > >the entire community. Developers, IRC staff, forums, mailing list > >discussions, > >bug triagers, sysadmins, etc, etc. Certainly there are some abrasive people. > >I > >do not make an attempt to be around those folks too much. However, we don't > >hate each other. I still feel comfortable around them, trust them, and can > >collaborate with them. > > > >Part of our "similar goals" should be to create a safe space for all who want > >to be a part of it. Do we really want to have newbies show up and say "Hey > >this is a really awesome space with all these resources, but the people > >friggin suck! Especially that one person who keeps making jokes about how > >women belong in the kitchen." > > > >Transphobes, homophobes, misogynists, racists, anti-intellectuals, and so on. > >Those aren't people that make a vibrant and healthy community. Without that > >community, collaboration doesn't spontaneously spring forth and we end up > >becoming just a building with tools in it and no shared sense of direction. > > Transphobes, homophobes, misogynists, racists, etc should only be a problem > if they are openly hostile towards a > specific group then they need to be taken care of on an individual basis. I'm > against all of those and yet realize > that we live in an imperfect world and will come into contact with such > people and just need to get around it. The > world doesn't cater to you or your feelings and the sooner your realize this > the better off you'll be. > > -Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
