[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems
Kevin
bfb at riseup.net
Fri Mar 14 22:33:47 UTC 2014
On March 14, 2014 3:17:03 PM PDT, Casey Callendrello <c1 at caseyc.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
Hey Jake,
I want to know what you want to achieve on this thread. A [drama] tag for our bayes filters to munge? A dialog with the community? With Tom? Do you want to talk about the proposal itself? Or the unexcellence of getting shut down?
To me, any of the above are valid.
-Kevin
PS I'm told the soma helps to keep an even keel when posting to the list
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list