[Noisebridge-discuss] Frantisek's Membership Status

Tom Lowenthal me at tomlowenthal.com
Sat Nov 23 23:29:31 UTC 2013


Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> I directly told Tom that I wanted him to block this wikipage related
> outing of members as my proxy. He has failed to do so as a member and he
> did not represent my hard resistance, clearly, if this has passed any
> consensus process. What petty authoritarianism indeed.

Hi Jake,

You got in touch with me *after* we had agreed to make the membership
list no longer a secret. I proposed it one week, and we agreed how to
do it the next. Although it was my proposal, the way that we chose to
implement it was not how I'd imagined it. That's fine and good: that's
how consensus is supposed to work.

You expressed your strong disagreement with the proposal to add a firm
horizon for members to make it clear who they were. We noted your
objections, and did not record that proposal as consensus.

If the torrent of abuse you threw at me by IM counts as a request for
a proxy then sure. Would that I were a time traveler, but going back
in time to proxy your objection is not within my skillset.


> Everyone should ignore this "consensus" item as it was clearly not a
> matter of Noisebridge consensus. If anyone is removed for not following
> these wiki related rules or they are not allowed to participate by
> someone citing these rules, I move that we remove these petty
> authoritarians from Noisebridge.
>
> This wikipage stuff is not in the spirit of Noisebridge, it is the
> spirit of someone who is vying for power and man, to do that at
> Noisebridge is really really sad.
>
> Tom - could you please knock it off?


Jake, I would have a lot more respect for your opinions on how to run
Noisebridge if you'd spent any length of time here in the past few
years, or planned to set foot in the space anywhere in the next half
decade. While I have sympathy for the difficulties which prevent you
from coming back, your absence limits your ability to experience
Noisebridge's current situation first hand.

The fact is that in addition to being a global symbol of anarchist
utopia, Noisebridge is also meant to be a hackerspace. Recently it
hasn't been much of one. Frequent theft and vandalism[^1] have made it
near-impossible for anyone to reliably work on a project larger than
they can carry. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and a wholly
incredible number of literal rapists regularly using the space have
made it an intolerably unsafe environment for women and trans* people.

I want Noisebridge to be a safe and inclusive space where people can
work on interesting projects, learn about technology and society, and
meet like and un-like minded folks. But inclusiveness does not just
mean opening our doors and asking everyone in. Being inclusive is an
active and difficult process of making the space safe and inviting for
folks other than cis white able men. That's what I think we're working
on.

If all the Noisebridge members who are so invested in their local
hackerspace that they come regularly to work and learn, who come to
meetings and actively and fully participate in our consensus process,
who try and make Noisebridge into an effective inclusive hackerspace
are a bunch of petty authoritarians, you're welcome to that opinion.
We're working on local solutions to local problems, and you're telling
us what we mustn't do from half the world away. I respectfully
disagree.


[^1]: No I don't mean redecoration, I mean people smashing stuff and
leaving the pieces everywhere for others to fix or clean up.


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list