[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Fri Mar 14 21:21:08 UTC 2014

well i'm glad you've solved all the problems with this wonderful email.

i guess my concerns were invalid and imagined, and everything is 
progressing fine with noisebridge policy.

carry on.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Al Sweigart wrote:

> 1) Tom, someone at Noisebridge has accused of being tyrant and abusing your power. Achievement unlocked.
> 2) Jake, the queue of consensus items has consistently been pretty long. At the meetings other items have always taken precedent. I like your wording change and am in
> favor of it, but I don't think it's urgent. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to hours and hours of slow, boring process.
> 
> 3) No one owes anyone compromise or explanation when they block an item. It has never been part of the de facto consensus policy and often the opposite is the case at
> Noisebridge. (This is why I think consensus sucks.)
> 
> 4) Jake: It is, in fact, not April.
> 
> 5) The IRC channel has been a hive of trolls and villainy. It's been a long time coming to boot people who can't stop themselves from calling other people racist and
> homophobic slurs. I don't see how Noisebridge's Anti-Harassment policy that was passed with consensus doesn't apply to the #noisebridge IRC channel.
> 
> 6) A good time to talk to Tom and everyone else about your four month old proposal would be at a weekly meeting. He's been to plenty of those recently in the last
> four months. You have not.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
>       Jake,
> A few notes on what you've said:
>
>  1. On February 4th, 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 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
> 
> 
> 
>