[hackerspaces] Safe Space Policies?

Tue Jan 28 00:54:09 CET 2014

Hey Loki,

Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate the counterpoints between the
two hackerspaces you've been involved with.

I think the problem with the word 'equality' is that it means different
things to different people. To people who have not been exposed to the
concept of priviledge (and their priviledges) equality (in my experience)
seems like a great word to be able to use and say 'everyone here is equal'
which tends to create situations where some members are 'more equal' than
most and generally doesn't acknowledge the inequality in our society.

Whereas my viewpoint and experiences have been that 'equality' seems to
describe the general condition of society where people are percieved to be
equal when they are not. Because of this, I'd prefer to use equity where
possible.

I've had the priviledge of being a member of the executive at our
hackerspace and working with the person who wrote our original rules and
founded the club and from my experiences with this the intent of the
founder was more for 'equity' but the word 'equality' was used because it
features heavily in many government documents.

Either way, thank you for your advice on this issue. It's much appreciated
:)

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, nog3 <nog3 at nog3.net> wrote:

> Hey Loki,
>
> Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate the counterpoints between the
> two hackerspaces you've been involved with.
>
> I think the problem with the word 'equality' is that it means different
> things to different people. To people who have not been exposed to the
> concept of priviledge (and their priviledges) equality (in my experience)
> seems like a great word to be able to use and say 'everyone here is equal'
> which tends to create situations where some members are 'more equal' than
> most and generally doesn't acknowledge the inequality in our society.
>
> Whereas my viewpoint and experiences have been that 'equality' seems to
> describe the general condition of society where people are percieved to be
> equal when they are not. Because of this, I'd prefer to use equity where
> possible.
>
> I've had the priviledge of being a member of the executive at our
> hackerspace and working with the person who wrote our original rules and
> founded the club and from my experiences with this the intent of the
> founder was more for 'equity' but the word 'equality' was used because it
> features heavily in many government documents.
>
> Either way, thank you for your advice on this issue. It's much appreciated
> :)
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Lokkju Brennr <lokkju at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've dealt with the issue both at HacDC, and at BrainSilo.
>>
>> BrainSilo, which I founded back in 2010, was created with the express
>> intent of being radically inclusive through radical tolerance - aka, say
>> what you want, and have really thick skin.  This has definitely caused some
>> people to not want to be associated with the space; it's also locally
>> driven the start of an expressly feminist hackerspace - which though I
>> disagree with the concept of, I'm happy to have for those who want it.
>>  We've never had someone suggest a SSP at BrainSilo, and I don't expect it
>> to happen - if someone is annoying you, tell them, suck it up, annoy them
>> back, or ask for the members to censure the problem individual.
>>
>> While living in DC last year, I was involved in the HacDC Anti-Harassment
>> policy fiasco - some might say I helped cause it, as I was a primary
>> objector to the initial draft.  An AHP was proposed with almost no
>> discussion, and *lots* of problems in it's wording - one of those
>> exceptionally badly wirtten and subjective ones that are prone to abuse.  A
>> few people objected on the members mailing list (which was the proper forum
>> for discussion of proposals), and a the ensuing thread had a massive amount
>> of triggers in it, causing some other members to claim they were being
>> harassed just by virtue of the discussion taking place.  This led to a
>> member of staff taking unilateral action to silence the discussion, and you
>> can probably imagine how well that went over - essentially, it was a comedy
>> of errors that wasn't funny at all; eventually, the proposal was voted in
>> after modifications.
>>
>> As you've already got your SPP through, congratulations - especially
>> since it seems a majority of your members either approved of it, didn't
>> care about it, or didn't understand it.  For others who are considering
>> putting in either a AHP or SSP, I strongly suggest taking it slow; having
>> conversations about it take place in a dedicated forum/mailing list that
>> people have to opt-in for; having trigger warnings everywhere; and having
>> some people with *really* thick skin acting as moderators.
>>
>> ~ Loki // BrainSilo.org
>>
>> Just as a nit-picky note, it's normally considered exceedingly reasonable
>> for a members to ask for the exact resolution/policy to be read before the
>> vote.  This is referred to as "Stating the Question" and/or "Putting the
>> Question" in the parlance of RROR, depending on the stage of the
>> proceedings at which it is done.  While electronic distribution and
>> discussion of proposals before a vote is wonderful, it's all to easy for
>> "small things" to get changed between the version that is sent out, and the
>> version that is adopted/voted on; reading the exact statement/policy that
>> is to be voted on helps prevent this.
>>
>> As a further nit-pick, almost by definition a "Safe Space Policy"
>> promotes and enforces what I'd term inequality; it artificially empowers
>> those who are willing to appear vulnerable/disadvantaged/non-privileged.
>>  If your goal, as you state, is founded on a base of equality, perhaps your
>> definition of equality differs greatly from mine.  I'm curious - when you
>> say equality, do you mean "affirmative equality"; or do you mean
>> "blind/neutral equality"?
>>
>> RROR: http://www.robertsrules.org/rror-01.htm - see (6) and (9)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Brendan Halliday <wodann at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you to everyone who has contributed constructively to this thread
>>> to provide your experiences with Safe Space Policies. Especially those who
>>> gave helpful suggestions on how to make sure the culture of the space
>>> matches its goals closely. (Mine is founded on a base of equality under the
>>> hackerspace's roof, and a Safe Space Policy helps to demonstrate and
>>> enforce that. Yours may not be so YMMV. :))
>>>
>>> Just for future context, only one member out of the 20 at the meeting
>>> voted against it and that's because he was upset that the group wouldn't
>>> let him read the policy then and there - we expect people to read and
>>> understand agenda items before the meeting and provide digital versions a
>>> week beforehand and printouts on the day.
>>>
>>> It's interesting also to notice the amount of white (I'm going to assume
>>> cis male) men on this mailing list dictating there is not a problem with a
>>> 'hackerspaces' culture, when there's many examples of how many problems
>>> there are with very closely related events and groups regularily in the
>>> news and on this mailing list. (I hate to pick on Noisebridge but they're a
>>> very prime example.)
>>>
>>> Again, thank you to the constructive, helpful repliers. I hope the rest
>>> can eventually hack their attitude to be the former!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Cecilia Tanaka <
>>> cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Michel,
>>>>
>>>> I hear that. And I understand.
>>>> I just don't care.
>>>>
>>>> Hugs from Brazil!
>>>>
>>>> (Sorry, I am too far to participate in your hackerspace, Mark! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Ceci
>>>> On Jan 27, 2014 4:07 PM, "Michel Gallant" <sfxman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You hear that, women? You can participate, but you have to do what
>>>>> this man says first.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Mark Janssen <
>>>>> dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay foo(l)s.  Here's the thing.  The hackerspace meme and world has
>>>>>> not "matured" sufficiently to be handling ideologies.  Everyone just
>>>>>> back the f*k off, so that these good people can get things done and
>>>>>> end the banter that they don't have the means to control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I strongly suggest, no more questions regarding policy-making,
>>>>>> policies, governance, funding, and such until the meme comes back
>>>>>> together.  Women you're more than welcome to participate, please just
>>>>>> come over here first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> markj
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>>>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140128/96d500ac/attachment-0001.html>