[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Adrian Chadd adrian.chadd at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 20:42:59 UTC 2014

Wait, what's stopping you from coming to a Tuesday night meeting,
gathering support and trying to push it forward?


On 14 March 2014 13:28, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> 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!!!
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040268.html
> mentioned in this thread as well:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/041463.html
> 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.
> -jake
> 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?
>> -Tom
>> On 22 December 2013 20:04, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>> tom,
>>> 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.
>>> -jake
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list