<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">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. <br>
      <br>
      As such, I personally think they're not that interesting to
      discuss.<br>
      <br>
      --Casey<br>
      <br>
      On 3/14/14, 2:57 PM, hep wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa6jscFjhBjgKsTJN+YWr-k7GVJJBRpvGH7KCoabUSrHeBtiw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">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. 
        <div>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>-hep </div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jake <span
            dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">while
            we're having a nice productive discussion about solving
            problems at noisebridge </sarcasm> i'll reply to more
            of your post:<br>
            <br>
            1> your mockery is counterproductive and makes me not
            want to keep participating<br>
            <br>
            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.<br>
            <br>
            3> so i guess this makes you a defender of something that
            you think sucks, rather than take this opportunity to
            suggest better behaviour?<br>
            <br>
            4> fuck you<br>
            <br>
            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.<br>
            <br>
            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.<br>
            <br>
            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.<br>
            <br>
            no response is requested from you until you have understood
            everything i've said AND where i'm coming from on this
            issue.<br>
            <br>
            -jake
            <div class=""><br>
              <br>
              On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Al Sweigart wrote:<br>
              <br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div class="">
                1) Tom, someone at Noisebridge has accused of being
                tyrant and abusing your power. Achievement unlocked.<br>
                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<br>
                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.<br>
                <br>
                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<br>
                Noisebridge. (This is why I think consensus sucks.)<br>
                <br>
                4) Jake: It is, in fact, not April.<br>
                <br>
                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<br>
                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.<br>
                <br>
                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<br>
                four months. You have not.<br>
                <br>
                <br>
                On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Hannah Grimm <<a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:dharlette@gmail.com" target="_blank">dharlette@gmail.com</a>>
                wrote:<br>
                      Jake,<br>
                A few notes on what you've said:<br>
                <br>
              </div>
               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
              <div class=""><br>
                    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<br>
                    issue in the future.  In short, Tom heard your
                complaints and made sure that wouldn't happen to anyone
                else in the future.<br>
              </div>
               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
              <div class=""><br>
                    reasonable about why he disagreed with your
                proposal.  In short, the exact opposite of what you're
                claiming here.<br>
              </div>
               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.
              <div class=""><br>
                     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<br>
                    you than any other member does.<br>
              </div>
               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
              <div>
                <div class="h5"><br>
                      or a cunt really that much of an issue?  Because
                  that all sounds pretty reasonable to me.<br>
                  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<br>
                  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<br>
                  lists "persistent uninvited communication" as a form
                  of harassment.  <br>
                  <br>
                  Hannah<br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jake <<a
                    moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jake@spaz.org"
                    target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
                        An open letter to Tom Lowenthal, actually
                  intended for the discuss list:<br>
                  <br>
                        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<br>
                        common ground, talk about friendly amendments,
                  or any progress at all.<br>
                  <br>
                        I accuse you of acting in bad faith in the
                  consensus process, which is even worse because you're
                  "Secretary of Noisebridge".<br>
                  <br>
                        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<br>
                        no willingness for discussion, despite the fact
                  that the proposal sought things that seemed to be
                  universally needed as improvements.<br>
                  <br>
                        For reference, here is the original proposal
                  MADE IN NOVEMBER!!!<br>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040268.html"
                    target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040268.html</a><br>
                  <br>
                        mentioned in this thread as well:<br>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/041463.html"
                    target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/041463.html</a><br>
                  <br>
                        It is now April.  Tom, you effectively
                  short-circuited my efforts to improve noisebridge and
                  come to meetings, single-handedly.  I can understand<br>
                        why Lee Sonko went crazy.  You are a tyrant!
                   You abuse your powers without shame!<br>
                  <br>
                        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<br>
                        channel erupted in protest of your unwelcome
                  "enforcement" actions.<br>
                  <br>
                        The discuss list has been buzzing with activity
                  to address concerns about making noisebridge a better
                  place.  I was working hard toward those goals<br>
                        until you blocked with no explanation.  What the
                  fuck is your motivation?<br>
                  <br>
                        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<br>
                        improve noisebridge ask themselves and each
                  other, what do we do when someone unilaterally
                  obstructs progress in this way?<br>
                  <br>
                        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<br>
                        emailed me with objections or concerns,
                  INCLUDING TOM.<br>
                  <br>
                        -jake<br>
                  <br>
                        On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Tom Lowenthal wrote:<br>
                  <br>
                              Hi Jake,<br>
                  <br>
                              I disagree with your proposal as written,
                  but I'm sure that there's<br>
                              middle ground to be found. I don't think
                  that this is going to be a<br>
                              productive email conversation. It'd be
                  much better in person. A<br>
                              Tuesday meeting probably isn't the easiest
                  or best time. How about<br>
                              getting together another time to try and
                  hash things out?<br>
                  <br>
                              -Tom<br>
                  <br>
                              On 22 December 2013 20:04, Jake <<a
                    moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jake@spaz.org"
                    target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
                                    tom,<br>
                  <br>
                                    i feel a bit frustrated by the lack
                  of progress made on the issue of<br>
                                    noisebridge access policy since your
                  blocking.<br>
                  <br>
                                    i spelled out my proposal very
                  clearly and showed up to discuss it, after<br>
                                    soliciting commentary on the list
                  for a number of weeks.<br>
                  <br>
                                    i am not satisfied with the current
                  state of noisebridge access policy.  I<br>
                                    am open to input from you on moving
                  forward but so far i haven't heard<br>
                                    anything from you but a simple
                  block.<br>
                  <br>
                                    please engage with me and describe
                  what about my proposal is acceptable to<br>
                                    you and what is not acceptable, so
                  that we can make as much progress as<br>
                                    possible.  I believe that if you are
                  acting in good faith that you will help<br>
                                    to facilitate progress and not just
                  inhibit.<br>
                  <br>
                                    -jake<br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                        _______________________________________________<br>
                        Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net"
                    target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss"
                    target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net"
                    target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss"
                    target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss"
              target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
        <br clear="all">
        <div><br>
        </div>
        -- <br>
        <div>hep</div>
        <div>hepic photography || <a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="http://www.hepic.net" target="_blank">www.hepic.net</a><br>
              <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dis@gruntle.org"
            target="_blank">dis@gruntle.org</a> || 415 867 9472 </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>