[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