Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- meetings:2025-12-28 [2025/12/29 01:31] – [Agenda Item 2] jeb
+++ meetings:2025-12-28 [2025/12/29 01:59] (current) – [December 28, 2025] jeb
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== December 28, 2025 ======
-Present: Jessica, Ivy (facilitator), Kate, Lorenzo, Bernard, Serenity, Jeb (minutes), Jill, Duff, Toast, Reyna, Leah, Richard
+Present: Jessica, Ivy (facilitator), Kate (took over facilitation for Ivy who was indisposed), Lorenzo, Bernard, Serenity, Jeb (minutes), Jill, Duff, Toast, Reyna, Leah, Richard
 ====== Meet and Greet ======
@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 ====== New business ======
+(Kate assumes facilitation for Ivy)
+Leah: Regarding the membership review that's sort of been posted, we talked at the last meeting with the person who wrote the review, and I thought we had acknowledged that the current review is not sufficient. If ther'es nothing explained on it, I can just be ambushed with whatever people wanted to say. I thought the point was not to do something that I consider harassment and bullying by reposting the same member review.
+Serenity: Why did you not have this grievance at the last member review?
+Leah: we did discuss this last week.
+Jeb: I think Serenity is referencing the last member review, with Chinhae.
+Serenity: I have discussed this with many people at this point, and no one has a problem with how it's written.
+Leah: Then no one understands our process. I thought it needed to be agreed to be replaced, so I took it down because of that and also because people were defacing it.
+Kate: Also the issue of asking people to discuss their sexual harassment.
+Leah: A summary would be sufficient. If you can't at least allude to the generalities, then maybe they don't have the evidence, and are trying to exploit and distort the situation.
+Serenity: Are you asking me to write 300 messages worth of evidence?
+Kate: I think this is becoming unproductive.
+Leah: I think it's very unfair to ask me to walk into a member review without knowing what has been alleged.
+Bernard: To be clear, we have used this format for every member review I have been to. Bullet points are legit points - you don't need to list everything in a paragraph. If you want more specific, we can post everything on that door for everyone to see.
+Leah: That's also intimidation and harassment.
+Bernard: This is how it's been since I moved in.
+Jessica: Can we moderate how we're speaking to each other?
+Kate: Keep it chill.
+Leah: We can find examples of how this has been done properly in the past. When Mary threw a glass and broke it, that was the specifics of what was being alleged. Without the specifics, it allows everyone to throw whatever they want at me. Also, the timing of why now, when much of these issues happened a year ago. Also, there's an ask, not necessarily a policy, for members to exhaust other options, such as dialogue and mediated conversation.
+Serenity: There is not currently a member review happening right now.
+Jill: I'm not taking sides, but when I did read it, my first thought was - so I can bring up something 4 years ago, ad it would be valid because there's not a date attached. I'm not trying to take sides; I don't even know what happened. Member reviews do need to be written up properly.
+Kate: We're in new business and cannot vote on anything, so I'm not sure how we should proceed or resolve this. We could do a straw poll, or add it to the agenda for next week.
+Don: I cannot vote on anything I don't know anything about.
+Leah: It's about stating the specifics of what is being alleged.
+Don: That must be specified.
+Ivy: If it would feel better for people to straw poll and delayed. I just want it to be known that efforts were made on Serenity's behalf to have a mediated conversation, and those efforts were gaslit.
+Richard: Did the posted member review change?
+Kate: It did not.
+Lorenzo: For example, if my name were on paper saying I'm sexually harassing somebody, I can't help having a feeling and a tone, I'm not saying that's an excuse, but Leah, would it be better to write down how you think a member review should be written, or put a voice note in a calmer tone? I'm not saying it's excusable, because your tone is kinda crazy, but also I'm not in the situation where my name is on paper about sexual harassment.
+Leah: Thank you, Zo, you're right; my tone is excessive and I'm not enjoying this situation at all. I've tried to communicate with people, including Serenity, and many of those people have decided I'm not safe to communicate with. I'm sorry you thought I was gaslighting you, and I'm surprised since you now admit you don't have any evidence. This is part of a pattern of ambushing me with meetings like this. If we're going to have a member review, we need to be clear about the specifics.
+Kate: Straw poll now. Do we want the text of the member review as written, or do we want any specifics about the incident of sexual harassment?
+Diana: This is a classic "he said, she said"
+Kate: This is not up for discussion. We are discussing whether to go through with the member review as posted or to alter it to discuss the specifics?
+Straw poll:
+Member review as posted: 4 votes
+Member review with edits: 8 votes
+Member review with edits passes.
+Edited version will be posted by next week's meeting for people to sign. That's the end of the meeting.