[sha2017-orga] An uncomfortable issue ...

[Sebastian Oort]

I'm with Nick on this one:

"Frankly, we have way, way, way too much to do collectively to burn too
much time on this matter. I trust the PL and the people who run the
TicketShop to figure out this banned persons list, get this information to
the right group of trusted people at the gate and leave it at that."

We have the infrastructure set up for this: the CoC, the CoC team, team
Safety, Projectleiding (before camp) and onsite camp leads.

I really don't want to spend any time discussing one single individual for
the umpteenth time, how 'big' he may be. (and yes he has been subject of
mail, irc and irl discussion several times already, he is not worth
spending any more oxygen on).

Trust the teams we all have entrusted to handle this and get back to
organising the rest of the event.

Sebastius / Bas


2017-06-06 0:50 GMT+02:00 Nick Farr <nick at nickfarr.org>:

> Think of it this way:
>
> Places where you go to party, where you go to socialize, where you go have
> drinks and fun will often have a "Banned Persons List".
>
> Almost no pub, bar, restaurant or club will publicly tweet out about
> people who are banned from their establishment. It generates bad publicity
> and bad feelings. There's nothing to be gained from it. When friends of
> those banned try to make an issue of it on Social Media, wise
> establishments do not engage.
>
> Yet, those who have been banned are well known to the employees of those
> establishments. Every one I've seen has a board in the back by the staff
> schedule with pictures of those persons. Accordingly, those persons on the
> banned list are consistently refused entry because of their past bad
> behavior (whether or not it rose to the level of a crime.)
>
> Frankly, we have way, way, way too much to do collectively to burn too
> much time on this matter. I trust the PL and the people who run the
> TicketShop to figure out this banned persons list, get this information to
> the right group of trusted people at the gate and leave it at that.
>
> Having known him for >15 years at this point, and having been one of those
> people who walked away (at the time) quietly because of his bad behavior,
> the thing Jake wants most is attention. Let's not give it to him.
>
> Nick Farr
> @nickf4rr
> US: +1 203 441 3277 <(203)%20441-3277> (Signal)
> MX: +52 55 6783 9592 <+52%2055%206783%209592> (WhatsApp)
> PGP: 0CB1 C17E 6113 31E8 8170  A99E FF2C 6361 D762 E03B
> HAM: N0FAR
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Patrice Riemens <patrice at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> Cf: https://medium.com/@squeed/jacob-appelbaums-may-9th-visit-to
>> -stammtisch-2c0c4f372af0
>>
>> esp:
>>
>> "But shouldn’t a hacker / activist community should be inclusive?
>> Exclusion is bad!
>>
>> It is important to understand that when you choose to include absolutely
>> everyone, you are also choosing to exclude others. For example, if Jacob is
>> welcome at, say, SHA, many people will not feel physically safe, and will
>> not be able to attend. The organizers of every space, every community,
>> every event must decide one way or another."
>>
>> So, is there any position being already discussed for this rerun of 'The
>> Return of the Mommy'?
>>
>> Not very much to Cheer about, I'm afraid.
>> p+2D!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Orga mailing list
>> Orga at lists.sha2017.org
>> https://lists.sha2017.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/orga
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Orga mailing list
> Orga at lists.sha2017.org
> https://lists.sha2017.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/orga
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.sha2017.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/orga/attachments/20170606/fdaeebec/attachment.html>