[Noisebridge-discuss] ROBERT 2.0 should not be banned despite some problems he creates

Rubin Abdi rubin at starset.net
Sun May 27 19:46:07 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

The rack in question had no names or contact info written on it. It
was blocking access to the fire escape at the time. It had a rats nest
of wires and cables, some going over head and past the the project
shelves. From what I remember it didn't even have proper power,
nothing was powered on.

None of the machines on the rack, at the time that Ben and I decided
that the thing was waste and shouldn't be blocking access and taking
up space, didn't even have hard drives. They were mostly really really
really old networking equipment. Nothing on it was properly screwed in.

The rack and its contents gave no impression that it was anyone's
personal belongings, or anyone's personal project. If it was meant to
be a project interfacing with the rest of the Noisebridge network (for
Noisebridge), for the amount of time it existed in the space,
rack at lists never once saw an email about it nor its goals it was
trying to fulfill over our current setup.

If the rack was being used for "clustering" and "teach a class", I
would love to know who heard that directly from Rob 2.0.

If the rack was someone's personal belongings, I'm deeply sorry that
Ben and I threw it out without informing you that some work needed to
be done before it should belong in the space (discussion about power
use, network use, clearly labeling who the item belongs do, the
project its a part of, contact information, not making it be a safety
hazard). All in all I find it rather rude to point fingers and cry
"unjustice" when common sense is blatantly ignored in respects to
personal belongings and respect in a community shared space.

Other than this whole rack debacle, I have no issues against Rob 2.0's
incompetence regarding software on public machines at Noisebridge. The
issues I do take with were his utter lack of respect to those who
setup those machines (one in particular for micro controller programing).

Additionally we've had a "no one fucking sleeps at Noisebridge" policy
since before we moved into 2169, stating otherwise is a lie. I've
informed Rob 2.0 of this on three different occasions (once with
Andy), waking him up, and letting him know that sleeping in the space
isn't a thing to do, and that if he needs a nap he should head home.
Each one of those times he's been extremely rude to me and has raised
his voice. The last one of those instances both Andy and I asked him
to leave the space and come back when he is more rested and less
aggressive. Since then he's crashed in the space time and time again.

The community has burnt countless man hours (days at this point)
discussing Rob 2.0, how to interact with him, providing mediation,
debating on if banning him is appropriate or not. Over this time Rob
2.0 has not once stepped up to talk to those of us who take issue with
him (a large number of us now), we don't even have a reliable channel
of communication to get a hold of him. He's lied to others about
talking with Mitch regarding mediation (and that Mitch said it was
cool for him to enter the space, when Rob 2.0 hadn't even spoken to
Mitch ever). We've given him a wide range of opportunities and means
to work with us, the Noisebridge community, to make things work for
both groups, and he's basically spat back in the face of that.

Us as a community have tried quite hard to make things work with Rob
2.0, and it's blatantly obvious this is something he doesn't want. If
you want to give him an inch and hear him out and work with him, then
please by all means do so, but on your own time, not that of
Noisebridge's. We've obviously failed at being a functional space for
Rob 2.0, our values and general community behaviors don't line up with

Robert Chu, could you please only speak about Rob 2.0 if he actually
contacts you and asks for a proxy? I'm starting to really hate these
eternal threads of (s)he said this, totally unfair, bring on justice,
when the party in question has no desire to defend themselves. He's
got plenty of time to fail at stalking me in my own neighborhood, no
reason why he can't put any of that time into actually talking with
Noisebridge about these issues.

There are two parts to our excellent code at Noisebridge for me,
generally being awesome, and playing nice with others. The second one
there isn't optional.

- -- 
rubin at starset.net

Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list