[Noisebridge-discuss] why cointelpro2.0 kills community
bfb at riseup.net
Fri Mar 28 04:42:54 UTC 2014
> I was at the meeting for banning josh. Initially it was consensed upon 2
> or 3 times but I kept continuing the discussion (as I was moderating).
> It was decided to put it off till the next week and I thought it was. I
> had 3 stand asides originally, including James. I kept asking because it
> felt like you wanted someone else to block and no one would actually do it.
> That was mildly unexcellent behavior.
Thank you Ron. I agree that no Consensus was reached at the Tuesday
meeting you reference. However,consensus history and policy
PLEASE, read the diff of the meeting notes. dj ryan posted a really
long back and forth note of what was discussed. The diff is Tom's edit
that revokes the whole discussion that concludes:
-- James: I will block
-- Consensus: Blockers: James
++ We had a very long discussion. Two of the three people who had
volunteered to speak with Josh were present and participated. We reached
consensus. [[User:bfb|Kevin]], [[user:Thex|JC]], and
[[User:James|James]] stood aside.
James blocked, it's in the notes. There was substantial back and forth.
Ron, in your infinite wisdom as moderator you sensed that the room was
divided, and prolonged discussion. We concluded that I should email
N0_Hat, and inform that before returning to Noisebridge we needed to
have a mediation process. This was not a Consensus, but rather a soft
agreement in lieu of consensus.
This is how consensus works! It can be long, even painful, but through
genuine discussion we reach a solution that no one thought of coming
into the conversation, and it is often greater than the original
proposal and the status quo.
Consensus was blocked, we reached an do-acratic alternative, yet the
wiki and repo reflect otherwise. I still do not understand. Why is our
history being rewritten?
Thanks for listening,
> As for the membership list, I think Tom removed the consensus item to
> rethink it or perhaps make it a board based decision.
> Leif, please reread that email I sent to Jake. I want to respond in a less
> emotional manner so I plan on responding later. Basic thing: I believe
> that law enforcement (with our current society and the way humanity
> currently exists) should be contacted on a case by case basis. I would
> contact law enforcement if I found a dead body for example. That makes
> sense to me. lets talk sometime!
> Jake same to you as to what I said to Leif. I do respect you but lets
> come up with solutions and find better ways.
> I think I will write a not emotional blog post at some point addressing
> both of you since I completely agree with both of you in that is the way
> humanity should be and how I think we can get to that point.
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:12 PM, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Message ends
>> On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Leif Ryge <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:18:11AM -0700, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
>>>> I think that the criticisms in your message are aimed at me. If
>>>> they're not, and it's someone else you're calling an awful person, a
>>>> petty tinpot dictator, an informant, an infiltrator, a lazy and
>>>> incompetent hijacker with awful intentions, then I apologise. Sadly, I
>>>> think you're talking about me.
>>> I think the informant part, at least, was likely referring to Ronald
>>> (who you and Al decided was a member over my objections) since he is
>>> actually known to have been an FBI informant.
>>> I do think you're acting like a dictator. I don't have any reason to
>>> you're a state-sponsored infiltrator, other than that your actions are
>>> consistent with someone intent on destroying a community organization
>> and that
>>> is a thing states sometimes covertly do. It also seems plausible that
>>> just doing this for the lulz.
>>> I appreciate and agree with Rachel1.0's recent "assume good faith"
>> message, and
>>> I generally try to do that. Unfortunately, I stopped doing that with
>> you, Tom,
>>> sometime last year when you told me quite plainly, in the context of a
>>> discussion about creating new policies at Noisebridge, that you are a
>>> troll". You literally said to me "You do know that I'm a giant troll,
>>> you?". (I was surprised to learn this, and said as much.)
>>> I regret that I haven't spent much of my recent time and energy on
>>> your bureaucratic process-trolling of Noisebridge. Living far away, as I
>>> now, has a lot to do with it, but I do still love Noisebridge and it
>> saddens me
>>> to watch your attempts at destroying it.
>>> My recommendation to the members of Noisebridge is to have a new board
>>> election, and elect people who aren't process fetishists. You shouldn't
>>> Tom's permission to do this, though I expect he'll tell you that you do.
>>> Removing Tom's membership would also be prudent, since he has clearly
>>> that he doesn't respect our consensus process.
>>> ps: what's the story here?
>> *~the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear...*
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss