[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems
jake at spaz.org
Fri Mar 14 20:28:25 UTC 2014
An open letter to Tom Lowenthal, actually intended for the discuss list:
I replied to the attached email and got nothing in response. This is
after REPEATED attempts to get you to talk about your objections and seek
a common ground, talk about friendly amendments, or any progress at all.
I accuse you of acting in bad faith in the consensus process, which is
even worse because you're "Secretary of Noisebridge".
It also reflects poorly on noisebridge in general that people were not
more demanding of an explanation from you when you blocked my proposal,
with no willingness for discussion, despite the fact that the proposal
sought things that seemed to be universally needed as improvements.
For reference, here is the original proposal MADE IN NOVEMBER!!!
mentioned in this thread as well:
It is now April. Tom, you effectively short-circuited my efforts to
improve noisebridge and come to meetings, single-handedly. I can
understand why Lee Sonko went crazy. You are a tyrant! You abuse your
powers without shame!
It was also disturbing to see you using your Operator powers to kickban
people in IRC for offending you, and caring not at all when the entire
channel erupted in protest of your unwelcome "enforcement" actions.
The discuss list has been buzzing with activity to address concerns about
making noisebridge a better place. I was working hard toward those goals
until you blocked with no explanation. What the fuck is your motivation?
This post may seem directed toward Tom, but i have no reason to expect a
productive response. Instead I ask that anyone reading this who wants to
improve noisebridge ask themselves and each other, what do we do when
someone unilaterally obstructs progress in this way?
I will point out that despite specifically asking for concerns or
constructive criticism to my proposal each time I posted it to the list,
NO ONE emailed me with objections or concerns, INCLUDING TOM.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> Hi Jake,
> I disagree with your proposal as written, but I'm sure that there's
> middle ground to be found. I don't think that this is going to be a
> productive email conversation. It'd be much better in person. A
> Tuesday meeting probably isn't the easiest or best time. How about
> getting together another time to try and hash things out?
> On 22 December 2013 20:04, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>> i feel a bit frustrated by the lack of progress made on the issue of
>> noisebridge access policy since your blocking.
>> i spelled out my proposal very clearly and showed up to discuss it, after
>> soliciting commentary on the list for a number of weeks.
>> i am not satisfied with the current state of noisebridge access policy. I
>> am open to input from you on moving forward but so far i haven't heard
>> anything from you but a simple block.
>> please engage with me and describe what about my proposal is acceptable to
>> you and what is not acceptable, so that we can make as much progress as
>> possible. I believe that if you are acting in good faith that you will help
>> to facilitate progress and not just inhibit.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss