[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

hep dis at gruntle.org
Fri Mar 14 21:57:57 UTC 2014

So epsas (who i know and quite like, but that isn't the point) responded to
a technical question invoking a movie that involved torture, rape, and
fecal fetish play, and you are asking what the problem with that is? and
for the record, one can be minority, and queer, and still engage in
abusive, exploitative, or unacceptable behavior towards other oppressed
groupings of people.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> while we're having a nice productive discussion about solving problems at
> noisebridge </sarcasm> i'll reply to more of your post:
> 1> your mockery is counterproductive and makes me not want to keep
> participating
> 2> don't fucking talk to me about urgent, or long boring hours of slow
> process.  I pushed my proposals for months before Tom made me give up.
> 3> so i guess this makes you a defender of something that you think sucks,
> rather than take this opportunity to suggest better behaviour?
> 4> fuck you
> 5> the specific IRC incident to which I refer was when epsas, an esteemed
> hacker and network engineer who primarily enjoys noisebridge through IRC
> because of geography, accurately answered a technical question about a
> network topology with the the words "human centipede", suggesting that the
> data packets were flowing from one computer to the other.
> Tom kickbanned him and, when asked why, said that epsas "put me off my
> lunch".  For the record, epsas is a minority and queer, and tom is
> literally hitler.
> 6> i went to plenty of weekly meetings to talk about this and other things
> before Tom turned me off of the process by unilaterally blocking my
> proposal and effectively refusing to discuss it further.
> no response is requested from you until you have understood everything
> i've said AND where i'm coming from on this issue.
> -jake
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

hepic photography || www.hepic.net
    dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140314/0b0b6772/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list