[Noisebridge-discuss] ROBERT 2.0 should not be banned despite some problems he creates
jim at systemateka.com
Mon May 28 07:49:40 PDT 2012
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 12:46 -0700, Rubin Abdi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> The rack in question had no names or contact info written on it. It
> was blocking access to the fire escape at the time. It had a rats nest
> of wires and cables, some going over head and past the the project
> shelves. From what I remember it didn't even have proper power,
> nothing was powered on.
> None of the machines on the rack, at the time that Ben and I decided
> that the thing was waste and shouldn't be blocking access and taking
> up space, didn't even have hard drives. They were mostly really really
> really old networking equipment. Nothing on it was properly screwed in.
> The rack and its contents gave no impression that it was anyone's
> personal belongings, or anyone's personal project. If it was meant to
> be a project interfacing with the rest of the Noisebridge network (for
> Noisebridge), for the amount of time it existed in the space,
> rack at lists never once saw an email about it nor its goals it was
> trying to fulfill over our current setup.
> If the rack was being used for "clustering" and "teach a class", I
> would love to know who heard that directly from Rob 2.0.
> If the rack was someone's personal belongings, I'm deeply sorry that
> Ben and I threw it out without informing you that some work needed to
> be done before it should belong in the space (discussion about power
> use, network use, clearly labeling who the item belongs do, the
> project its a part of, contact information, not making it be a safety
> hazard). All in all I find it rather rude to point fingers and cry
> "unjustice" when common sense is blatantly ignored in respects to
> personal belongings and respect in a community shared space.
> Other than this whole rack debacle, I have no issues against Rob 2.0's
> incompetence regarding software on public machines at Noisebridge. The
> issues I do take with were his utter lack of respect to those who
> setup those machines (one in particular for micro controller programing).
> Additionally we've had a "no one fucking sleeps at Noisebridge" policy
> since before we moved into 2169, stating otherwise is a lie. I've
> informed Rob 2.0 of this on three different occasions (once with
> Andy), waking him up, and letting him know that sleeping in the space
> isn't a thing to do, and that if he needs a nap he should head home.
> Each one of those times he's been extremely rude to me and has raised
> his voice. The last one of those instances both Andy and I asked him
> to leave the space and come back when he is more rested and less
> aggressive. Since then he's crashed in the space time and time again.
> The community has burnt countless man hours (days at this point)
> discussing Rob 2.0, how to interact with him, providing mediation,
> debating on if banning him is appropriate or not. Over this time Rob
> 2.0 has not once stepped up to talk to those of us who take issue with
> him (a large number of us now), we don't even have a reliable channel
> of communication to get a hold of him. He's lied to others about
> talking with Mitch regarding mediation (and that Mitch said it was
> cool for him to enter the space, when Rob 2.0 hadn't even spoken to
> Mitch ever). We've given him a wide range of opportunities and means
> to work with us, the Noisebridge community, to make things work for
> both groups, and he's basically spat back in the face of that.
> Us as a community have tried quite hard to make things work with Rob
> 2.0, and it's blatantly obvious this is something he doesn't want. If
> you want to give him an inch and hear him out and work with him, then
> please by all means do so, but on your own time, not that of
> Noisebridge's. We've obviously failed at being a functional space for
> Rob 2.0, our values and general community behaviors don't line up with
> Robert Chu, could you please only speak about Rob 2.0 if he actually
> contacts you and asks for a proxy? I'm starting to really hate these
> eternal threads of (s)he said this, totally unfair, bring on justice,
> when the party in question has no desire to defend themselves. He's
> got plenty of time to fail at stalking me in my own neighborhood, no
> reason why he can't put any of that time into actually talking with
> Noisebridge about these issues.
> There are two parts to our excellent code at Noisebridge for me,
> generally being awesome, and playing nice with others. The second one
> there isn't optional.
> - --
> rubin at starset.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss