[sudo-discuss] [omni-discuss] Elliot Hughes

[Ryan]

I personally support sudo's policy on this, rather than a policy in which
you cannot ban someone from a space for safety issues until mediation is
handled. It is not possible to keep an area a safe space if people cannot
be asked to leave until mediation (which should be conducted off property)
has been facilitated. (Obviously sudo's policy in general is going to stick
in a sudo room issue, but I thought I'd bring it up because I have a lot of
~feels about it.)

Someone temporarily losing access to the Omni is not nearly as concerning
to me as facilitating a culture in which we keep people around who have
repeatedly made people unsafe or participated in acts of violence.

I also feel like large public meetings on matters like these facilitate
shaming the person of discussion more than they promote fairness. And if
the person in question is there, people feel unsafe and honest discussion
can't happen anyway.

I also agree that it's tough when it's someone known well to the community
rather than an unestablished stranger. However, I think rather than looking
at it as a ban, one could look at it as giving Elliot the space and
resources to heal and strengthen, which is clearly not happening in this
community, with the hopes of at some point welcoming Elliot back to sudo
with open arms.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, yar <yardenack at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Eske Silver <eske.silver at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > We do already (or damn oughta) have precident for these interactions...
>
> Sudoroom has many long-standing policies for this. First, any Sudoroom
> member is empowered to ask a non-member to leave at any time. Second,
> when a person's presence makes someone else feel unsafe, we ask them
> to leave and not return until the end of a conflict resolution process
> (if they want one). The process involves a mediator and steward having
> private meetings and then reporting back afterwards. Facts and
> arguments are not hashed out at a public meeting unless the process
> has failed spectacularly. We've never had to do that.
>
> Sudoroom values fairness, but we have always prioritized safety over
> fairness.
>
> WRT Elliot, I haven't been around enough lately to know, but it sounds
> like we've kicked out many strangers for less and never thought twice.
> It's so much easier to be lenient with a familiar face, but that's not
> "fair"...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20150112/d96040da/attachment.html>