[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Fri Mar 14 21:17:46 UTC 2014

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<https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Items_History>,
>    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 <https://github.com/noisebridge/anti-harassment>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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140314/dac862b3/attachment-0003.html>