[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight
jacob at appelbaum.net
Wed Feb 26 13:13:20 UTC 2014
On 2/26/14, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom was repeatidely contacted by lee. He asked lee to stop, he didn't.
> That is harassment. Tom made an effort to get lee to stop and he didn't.
> On Feb 25, 2014 4:39 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
Ahem. Tom alledges that he is being harassed by Lee. This is worth
discussing and resolving, obviously.
However - Tom was in a position of official capacity for Noisebridge -
to ban someone for communicating with him is very extreme. It actually
makes it hard for Noisebridge to function.
Apparently and I think we'd like to confirm this story: Tom didn't
like the wiki edits that Lee was making and Tom removed his wiki admin
privileges. Thus in-addition to being the secretary of Noisebridge, he
was also acting as a wiki admin. It seems appropriate to contact Tom
to resolve the situation in my view. Furthermore, it appears that Lee
was unable to attend a meeting where a ban was proposed for
socioeconomic reasons (read: he has to work on that night). This
doesn't feel like a good faith effort to resolve conflict, it feels
like a heavy handed political response from a position of (petty)
It seems reasonable to allow Lee to resolve the conflict with
Noisebridge - I hope that he will come to the meeting and discuss the
issues leading to him being banned. Resolving that conflict is
Please keep this in mind as a process that is probably happening to
Noisebridge these days:
All the best,
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss