[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Casey Callendrello c1 at caseyc.net
Fri Mar 14 22:17:03 UTC 2014

About 3 hours after they came in to existence, I chatted with Tom about
the IRC killbots and we agreed they were over the top - they were
neutered shortly after.

As such, I personally think they're not that interesting to discuss.


On 3/14/14, 2:57 PM, hep wrote:
> 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. 
> -hep 
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         _______________________________________________
>         Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>     _______________________________________________
>     Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>     Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>     <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>     https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> -- 
> hep
> hepic photography || www.hepic.net <http://www.hepic.net>
>     dis at gruntle.org <mailto:dis at gruntle.org> || 415 867 9472 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/eef8cb28/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list