[Noisebridge-discuss] why cointelpro2.0 kills community

Naomi Gmail pnaomi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 04:01:50 UTC 2014

That is THE most cogent argument you have ever made about a problem with consensus.  And it is a good one. 


> On Mar 27, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can answer that one, Kevin. I brought it up at the meeting, but a lot of things were said at the meeting so I don't think I really got the point across.
> Tom reverted your wiki change that reverted his wiki change because he thinks that the consensus item passed. What happened at that meeting (as far as I can gather) is that a call for consensus was made, and no one blocked, but people wanted to continue talking, so talking continue. Then apparently another call for consensus was made and still no one blocked, but people wanted to keep talking. Then James arrived at the meeting and then blocked.
> So, I think this brings up an interesting question of when is an item consensed? If it is consensed when a call for consensus is made and no one blocks, then it's obvious that consensus has been reached. But if consensus is made when the meeting adjourns and no one has block, then James coming in later to block obviously blocks it. We should figure out a process to iron this out and make sure this ambiguity doesn't exist. Otherwise, if I can block something after consensus has been reached, could I block something that was consensed on at the last week's meeting? Last month's meeting? I don't like that idea since membership was also done by consensus and that means people could (or threaten to) block someone's membership months after the fact.
> So this seems to be more a misunderstand caused by an ambiguity of the consensus process.
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Kevin Schiesser <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> Leif Ryge:
>> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:18:11AM -0700, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
>> >> I think that the criticisms in your message are aimed at me. If
>> >> they're not, and it's someone else you're calling an awful person, a
>> >> petty tinpot dictator, an informant, an infiltrator, a lazy and
>> >> incompetent hijacker with awful intentions, then I apologise. Sadly, I
>> >> think you're talking about me.
>> >
>> > I think the informant part, at least, was likely referring to Ronald Cotoni
>> > (who you and Al decided was a member over my objections[1]) since he is
>> > actually known to have been an FBI informant[2].
>> >
>> > 1: https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-February/042246.html
>> > 2: https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2012-April/030267.html
>> >
>> > I do think you're acting like a dictator. I don't have any reason to believe
>> > you're a state-sponsored infiltrator, other than that your actions are
>> > consistent with someone intent on destroying a community organization and that
>> > is a thing states sometimes covertly do. It also seems plausible that you're
>> > just doing this for the lulz.
>> >
>> > I appreciate and agree with Rachel1.0's recent "assume good faith" message, and
>> > I generally try to do that. Unfortunately, I stopped doing that with you, Tom,
>> > sometime last year when you told me quite plainly, in the context of a
>> > discussion about creating new policies at Noisebridge, that you are a "giant
>> > troll". You literally said to me "You do know that I'm a giant troll, don't
>> > you?". (I was surprised to learn this, and said as much.)
>> >
>> > I regret that I haven't spent much of my recent time and energy on preventing
>> > your bureaucratic process-trolling of Noisebridge. Living far away, as I do
>> > now, has a lot to do with it, but I do still love Noisebridge and it saddens me
>> > to watch your attempts at destroying it.
>> >
>> > My recommendation to the members of Noisebridge is to have a new board
>> > election, and elect people who aren't process fetishists. You shouldn't need
>> > Tom's permission to do this, though I expect he'll tell you that you do.
>> > Removing Tom's membership would also be prudent, since he has clearly shown
>> > that he doesn't respect our consensus process.
>> >
>> > ~leif
>> >
>> > ps: what's the story here?
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Consensus_Items_History&diff=40845&oldid=40844
>> I would also like to hear why Tom reverted my edit to our history. We
>> were both at the same meeting where James blocked N0_Hat's banning. JC
>> and I stood aside.
>> I would also like to hear why Tom closed consensus on publishing the
>> member list, despite James also blocking these proposals.
>> Thank you for noticing,
>> Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/82e476b8/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list