[PragmaticPulp]

If you join a new organization, they send you a calendar, and the first event on the calendar is marked as an all-hands orientation meeting, would you really assume that it's somehow optional?

> Not clicking on the event at 7:15am in the morning just in case doesn't seem to be an offense that deserves this level of punishment.

I understand that you disagree with the consequences for the authors' actions, but I'm struggling to comprehend all of the people trying to place the blame on Recurse Center when the author clearly admits that he didn't read the communications and chose to ignore the calendar invite.

If someone failed to attend the orientation, failed to respond to an e-mail asking why they missed the orientation (the first e-mail), and admitted that they weren't actually reading the e-mail communications or even reading their own calendar, I would have to assume that they weren't all that interested in taking their participation seriously in the first place.

Reading the details, participating, and showing up on time are basic prerequisites for any organization. It's not realistic to expect the staff to go out of their way to divert effort and attention to those who can't follow through with the basics. It's not fair to the staff, and it's not fair to the rest of the members who are putting in proper effort to follow the rules.

The Recurse Center gave him a second chance to participate in the next session. Given that he missed most of the first day and the orientation and he couldn't engage in a timely manner with follow-up e-mails asking about his absence, I think that's reasonable.

[gpm]

> and the first event on the calendar is marked as an all-hands orientation meeting, would you really assume that it's somehow optional?

If I saw it, of course not. But, if the calendar is filled with community fluff events I would absolutely expect to be told about any mandatory events in another fashion and I might well (like the author) not notice it.

> The Recurse Center gave him a second chance to participate in the next session

Given that this means 6 more weeks of no pay, that's not really a second chance. This sort of time commitment means that it can't just be rescheduled at low cost.

> Given that he missed most of the first day

I see nothing to support this assertion.