[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

John Ellis neurofog at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 20:59:20 UTC 2014


Just for the record, issues such as wiki admin privileges, discuss list
moderation and similar network resource admin issues should really go on
rack, especially when a particular admin doesn't wish to discuss privately.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jake,
> ...
> 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
> harassment.
> Hannah
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140314/171ce373/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list