This was recently discussed in the Monthly Members Meeting, and has caused quite a stir within Telegram. Please find the meeting minutes here: https://github.com/HACManchester/MMMMM/blob/master/2018-08-13.md
As it stands any bans, suspensions, and written warnings* are logged and announced on the wiki:
*Only when a situation has progressed to the stage of receiving a written warning will they be added to the wiki page, verbal warnings are not added and written warnings are only given for more extreme circumstances or continuing patterns of behaviour.
There has been discussion whether or not this is the best way to handle this, as it could be seen as “naming and shaming” and perhaps isn’t ideal information to release publicly.
What are your thoughts on the matter? How should this information be distributed amongst the community, if at all?
My personal opinion is that the information needs to be shared with the community, as there is very little that the board does should be kept private from the rest of the community. Please do remember the board is not the authority of the community, and in fact exists purely to manage the financial and legal obligations we have (and unfortunately situations such as bans and warnings).
I don’t feel sharing it publicly on the wiki is the best approach, as this could lead to plentyful issues further down the line. If we could lock those wiki pages behind having to login to the wiki that could work, and we also need to ensure only members of the board can edit these pages.
Not knowing who the banned people are, I Googled their names. For one of them, the Hacman ‘banned’ page came up in the first page of Google results. I agree that moving them to a login-only page, or otherwise hiding them from search engines (if possible), would be better.
I think the community needs to know what is going on. Having this information available to members shows that issues are being dealt with.
I disagree entirely with posting the full names of people who have received a written warning on a publicly accessible page. It’s appalling that it’s been done, in my opinion. It is undeniably shaming them, even if that’s not the intention.
If the board is going to shame people, it needs to at least be consistent. For example, I can think of a relatively recent written warning where the person’s name wasn’t posted on the page.
I also would like to see what happens if the individual(s) shamed above use their new right to be forgotten: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/
Possibly worth a separate thread:
In terms of the board having very little being kept private, there’s an awful lot more that could be done around that point if that’s the motivation here.
The general saying is “we just pay rent”, but there’s so much more stuff going on such as signing up new members which is still very manual, dealing with people leaving, of course paying the rent, the whole suddenly having to pay for electricity thing which hasn’t been discussed as much as I’d like, insurance fun, state of the bank accounts on a monthly basis (which the Member Meetings initially did have but seems to have tailed off), enquiries and infrastructure stuff.
For banned users I’m okay with those being listed, although that being behind a login wall out of public sight would be best to avoid any potential legal problems further down the line.
It’s important to know not to let someone in if they ring the buzzer etc.
For written warnings I agree with connor
- There’s no context or detail so you know there’s been a written warning but not what for so what’s the point of making everyone aware of it? It just leaves open ended questions. Since the underlying reasons only exist within the board domain there isn’t much of a reason for listing it.
- Having this publicly listed and not behind a login wall again isn’t the smartest idea in the world.
- This sort of change I think needs to be validated at a wider level including all members and board members alike, it could potentially be classed as a change to the Coc.
- Are there time scales for how long written warnings last / how long they should be listed if at all?
- If these are to be listed then should this be done past tense for warnings already given before now?
- are there plans to also include Coc violations later on? and would that have context? or will this be limited to written warnings?
Written warnings should be listed on the page.
Verbal warnings need to be recorded so that a change of board dont cause things to be forgotten.
The Warning / Banning process is an board internal process and as such is outside the scope of Members Meetings. If members feel the need for a change to this, it should be brought via an EGM or an AGM.
@Cone I can think of no written warning other than that given to Jim that has not been listed on that page.
The one given to Jim isn’t listed (though it could be) as his warning was escalated immediately to a ban.
I realize you have a bee in your bonnet about this. But please stick to the truth.
Incidentally, unless written warnings have been issued without my knowledge there have only ever been two issued.
Think back to when tools were removed from the space, the email was sent February 2nd 2018.
Please also don’t accuse me of not telling the truth unless you have some sort of evidence. We obviously don’t get on but it can remain respectful.
One of the issues we have here is nomenclature. “Written Warning” is a bad descriptor.
In the process, a Second Warning i.e. the only thing that would ever be published is only issued in case of either a series of small reports, or a large single issue.
Are we all agreeing that these pages should be behind a login?
If so could the appropriate people action that?