|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Complaint from NYLUG
|On 11/20/19 1:48 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
>> On 11/20/19 1:53 AM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>>> If you were the recipient,
>>> would you bother to read the policy? Since it's already resulted in a total
>>> ban, there seems no incentive to do so.
>> It so happens that in this case I did read it and there is nothing in it
>> that I remotely violated.
> I also read them; the strongest feedback the policy mentions is being asked to
> leave an event -- nowhere does it imply that someone will be immediately
> disallowed from attending all future events, and certainly doesn't imply that
> happening without any discussion.
>> Honestly, this email is so inapropriate and libelous, that I have to
>> question Brian's emotional stability.
> This kind of abusive behavior is worth scrutiny irrespective of who the source
> is -- judgment and punishment have occurred in one step, with no opportunity for
> discussion of what actually happened. What if claims reported were false,
> events misconstrued, or based on miscommunication? Was there really no more
> reasonable way of handling the situation than an immediate permanent ban from
> all events in perpetuity?
> And this is not the first time I've seen Brian accused of libel. The last time
> this was brought up and I looked into it I found out Brian's claims were untrue,
> right down to the very source quoted from -- and afterwards he continued to
> insist the claims were true in plain face of that.
> This is exactly *not* the way NYLUG was run when I was last involved with it.
> When I was running the NYLUG mailing list, I would occasionally need to suspend
> someone, but that always came with an explanation for what section of the rules
> had been violated, and a discussion about it with the person having been judged
> to have crossed them to insure they understood the rules and what the
> expectations were going forward. This was continued even with repeat offenders.
> Nobody was ever permanently banned as the first response.
> New leadership, new philosophy ... right to zero tolerance policy.
> Having a meeting policy or a code-of-conduct is good -- but being heavy-handed
> with responses associated with them isn't.
> -- Chris
This is the part that pisses me off the most. I was the one that was
instumental in preventing NYLUG from being torn away from Brian and the
leadership at that critical juncture. I was the peice keeper that tried
to tie all the arguing factions togther. I DO NOT deserve this kind of
treatment. This is Brian just lashing out at me because I am old, male
and white, to puctuate his point about RMS, and I am even LESS guilting
that RMS was, who was entirely not guilty as well.
I'm also the guy who paid for an entire spread of salads and dips for
the hackers event, to build commradery and friendship. I have been an
essentail facilitator of NYLUG for DECADES.
He is just being a pig and this shows me that NYLUG needs new leadership.
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Hangout mailing list