[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Hannah Grimm dharlette at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 20:52:54 UTC 2014


A few notes on what you've said:

   1. On February
   a proposal by Tom to require that we NOT change consensus items between
   discussing them and passing them was passed.  This seems to be a direct
   acknowledgment by Tom that the changes made to past consensus items as they
   were being discussed & passed was *not* working, and an attempt to fix
   the issue in the future.  In short, Tom heard your complaints and made sure
   that wouldn't happen to anyone else in the future.
   2. Based on the email you forwarded, it looks like Tom was willing to
   meet with you to discuss this.  To me, that looks like Tom was replying and
   being reasonable about why he disagreed with your proposal.  In short, the
   exact opposite of what you're claiming here.
   3. Tom blocking a proposal has nothing to do with "Tom the Secretary."
    "Tom the Secretary" doesn't do much.  He cashes checks, and manages the
   github repo.  That's about it.  All of the actions you're unhappy about are
   just things that Tom-the-member does, and he doesn't have any greater
   ability to stonewall you than any other member does.
   4. It's unclear to me what about the IRC ban-bot bothers you.  Is it the
   fact that you're not allowed to say slurs?  Is the inability to call
   someone a nigger or a cunt really that much of an issue?  Because that all
   sounds pretty reasonable to me.

As a note to everyone, it's important to remember that NO member of
Noisebridge is obliged to be your friend, answer your emails, or respond to
you.  If you try to communicate with someone, and they won't reply, that's
generally a good sign that they don't want to talk to you.  Our
anti-harassment policy
<https://github.com/noisebridge/anti-harassment>specifically lists
"persistent uninvited communication" as a form of


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:28 PM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140314/47396af2/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list