[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.
--Casey
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