I have been threatened and ordered to resign from the board

[David Lang]

I have been told that a petition has been circulated to call a vote of no
confidence against me unless I resign by today.

My offense is apparently that I don't agree that every user of X is a Nazi and
deserves to be banned from HSL (in the long thread, there were people stating
that they would rather HSL shut down than to have any of 'those people' be
members). There were threats to kick me off the board at that time, but they
backed down when they realized how difficult it would be to do so.

They then filed a code of conduct charge against me, which tool several months
to get reviewed (holidays) and it was dismissed.

I don't know what is in the petition that's been circulated, I know the code of
conduct complaints were about posts I made on X before I was elected.

I keep my X posts completely separate from my other activites, I have never
posted anything about HSL there, I have never posted any of my X posts on any
HSL board. I don't even use the same email for X that I use for anything else.

But people out to get my found it (in spite of the fact that David Lang and even
David E Lang are pretty common names), and dug through my history to find things
they could take out of context to try and bully me.

I refuse to be bullied. If the membership decides that you have to be of a
particular political viewpoint to participate in HSL, then I will leave, but I
will not leave because a few members order me to.

There have been no complaints abut my actions or interactions with anyone in the
space, this has all be the snide "we can't have someone with THOSE views
represent the space" type of complaints.

It took them chainging the bylaws and in the process denying that they were out
to target any existing board members (including when I mentioned that I felt
that the entire proposal was targeted at getting rid of me), but it looks like
they may finally be able to kick me out.

I look forward to seeing details of this complaint (rather than the shadowy "we
have a signed petition, resign and we'll let you go quietly, or else")

For people who claim to be "radically inclusive", this is an intersting way to
be inclusive.

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

Lmao just leave dude

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/2no0nqr7-n8o3-q73q-1r3p-2s870433439p%40ynat.uz.

[Robert Bushman]

I don't know nothing about this, so I can't say what the backstory is,
but in case that trailing sentence below is related in any way, let me
be 100% crystal clear:

Radical inclusiveness does not include including people who have a
history of opposing inclusion.

> <mailto:heatsynclabs%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> heatsynclabs/2no0nqr7-n8o3-q73q-1r3p-2s870433439p%40ynat.uz

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/2no0nqr7-n8o3-
> q73q-1r3p-2s870433439p%40ynat.uz>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> heatsynclabs/CAAhnbvtzgkjpjTfXbhwnBDxsL6ZXUsj-
> PbNjOY9nYQWE2jv0%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/heatsynclabs/CAAhnbvtzgkjpjTfXbhwnBDxsL6ZXUsj-
> PbNjOY9nYQWE2jv0%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[David Lang]

Robert Bushman wrote:

> I don't know nothing about this, so I can't say what the backstory is, but in
> case that trailing sentence below is related in any way, let me be 100%
> crystal clear:
>
> Radical inclusiveness does not include including people who have a history of
> opposing inclusion.

so if I have a history of opposing inclusion, even if unreated to HSL, I should
be shunned.

so what if people are trying to kick me out and I don't have such a history,
should they be kicked out under the same logic?

Is it enough to think that I have such a history without anyone testifying to a
case of me opposing their inclusion?

and do we really want to start hunting down peoples's social media posts for
anything that could possibly be read as opposing some other group?

Or should we stick to how a person behaves in and around HSL where we actually
see their behavior?

frankly, at this point I really don't know the backstory here either. I don't
even know the current complaints against me. Just that there was a petition
circulated and enough people signed it to trigger the new bylaws that were just
passed to make it easier to remove a board member.

And yes, I do recognize I'm being a bit aggressive here, I see no benefit in
being quiet and letting the campaign against me go unanswered.

David Lang

[Kirk]

Bob beat me to it, and said it much better than I could - "radical inclusiveness does not include including people who have a history of opposing inclusion"

I don't think anybody is trying to kick you out of HSL, just off the board.  A board member is held to a higher standard, because 1) a board member represents HSL, and 2) a board member has greater power over HSL and its members.

Social media posts, like any publication, are one's inner thoughts and beliefs.  Decisions made by a board member are based on their inner beliefs, as you made clear when you said "a board member has a duty to the organization to [vote against something that was passed at a HYH] if they believe the proposal is wrong".  Examining social media posts is a valid exercise to determine the inner beliefs that are guiding a board member's decisions that often greatly affect HSL and its members.  I don't think anybody is saying that your public behavior in and around HSL is less than exemplary.  Instead, I think they are saying your hidden beliefs are dangers to HSL and its members, because as a board member you make consequential decisions.

Besides the fact that a board member makes far reaching decisions, a board member is a visible representation of HSL and its values.  People participate or leave based on their perception of the group's values.  If a person feels unsafe, they withdraw, and the group loses.  It sucks that a board member has to be a saint, but that is part of the job, even if it is unpaid.

[Robin of Loxley]

I’m no Board Member, nor am I a regular visitor to HSL, but I feel this needs to be said:

Appealing to nebulous “hidden beliefs” as justification to remove a Board Member, especially when you have to go trawling through their social media to find evidence of these “hidden beliefs,” is even less aligned to HSL’s values than the posts themselves. Doubly-so because you’ve admitted that David’s public behavior as a board member has been “exemplary”.

To put it bluntly: Your argument is tantamount to accusing David of thought-crimes, and then using those alleged thought-crimes as justification to remove him from the board. It’s Bad-Faith on its face. Even more so because, again, you’ve admitted that his actual behavior has been exemplary. 

To be clear, Kirk, I’m not accusing *you* specifically of being a bad-faith actor. I’m saying that those who are trying to remove David from the board are doing so under bad-Faith pretenses.

On May 9, 2026, at 4:09 AM, Kirk <kirkathea...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/56d227bf-ac11-41b5-86c4-a146fa0dcdb2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Moheeb Zara]

Heatsync Labs membership,

I'm writing to provide source materials so every member can form their own judgment ahead of the special election. David has shared his account of the petition; the substantive basis lives in a Code of Conduct complaint filed by seven members on November 30, 2025. That complaint has not been broadly circulated until now.

Before any of this went public, I sent David a private message offering him the option to step down on his own terms. Had he taken that option, the petition would have been shelved, the complaint would not be circulated, and this thread would not exist. The point was to handle this professionally and privately, both as a courtesy to David and to spare the lab the reputational cost that comes with public conflict over board removal. David chose to make this public, which is his right; the documents below are what's now appropriate for the membership to see.

The complaint (signatures redacted): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing

The bylaws clause invoked (Article II, Section 9, Member-Called Special Elections, ratified by the membership Feb 28, 2026): https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws#MEMBER-CALLED_SPECIAL_ELECTION 

The petition at present has 9 signatures. 

A few clarifications, because David's account contains specifics that don't match the record:

1. Timing. David has stated the cited tweets were "before I was elected." Three of the five tweets cited in the complaint are post-election:

- October 12, 2025 (three days after his October 9 election): LGBT-and-criminality tweet
- November 3, 2025: "predict the race of the culprit" tweet
- November 5, 2025: cultures-must-be-rejected tweet

The other two (February and March 2025) are pre-election. Dates are visible on the screenshots.

2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." It was submitted; the prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for removal; that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration. 

3. On "no complaints about my interactions in the space." The pattern is not confined to social media.

In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member, David has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is racist."

In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal, when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to have sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and characterizes trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex. Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about board fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia prohibition is concerned with.

The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one outside organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.

How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is part of how members experience that board member.

4. On "political viewpoint" and what the bylaws actually say. The Membership section of the bylaws does protect political affiliation/orientation from discrimination, and it protects every other category named in the petition just as explicitly: race, gender, national origin, religion, creed, sexual preference/orientation, age, disability, software preference, and veteran status. The petition is not citing political affiliation. It is citing public statements that fall within what the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly prohibits: "Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory jokes or language and personal insults."

These statements are not isolated incidents. They form a pattern across multiple months and multiple protected-class targets. Any single statement might be debatable in isolation; the cluster is what the complaint is responding to. The complaint reproduces them with dates and direct screenshots so members can weigh the body as a whole.

The Code of Conduct explicitly addresses two questions David's defense raises:

Off-lab speech. Section 8.9 ("Scope") extends the CoC to "unacceptable behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of community members." The CoC was written with precisely this question in mind.

Application to board members. Section 8.6 ("Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior") states explicitly that "Unacceptable behavior from any community member, including board members and those with decision-making authority, will not be tolerated."

Whether the documented public statements rise to that standard is the question for the membership.

5. Fitness for the role, beyond the statements. Speaking for myself and not necessarily for every signatory: several of us also have concerns about David's fitness to serve on the board that exist independent of the public statements. In broad terms, these concerns include relatively short tenure at the lab and a pattern of resistance to established procedures and community norms. The petition does not require any stated reason, and the public statements are sufficient on their own. I mention this only so members understand that the protected-class concerns are not the sole basis on which several signatories question continued board service.

6. On "ordered to resign" and "bullying." I want to be specific about what actually happened.

In November, seven members filed a written Code of Conduct complaint with the board, citing specific public statements. Filing a multi-signatory CoC complaint through the channel the bylaws provide for that purpose is not bullying. It is the formal process. The complaint was not acted on, and no communication about its disposition was returned to the signatories.

Then this week, I sent David a private message offering him the option to resign on his own terms before a petition was filed. I made clear that if he preferred the matter to go to a vote instead, I would respect that. No individual member has authority to order a board member to do anything. What I offered was an off-ramp, not an order.

The petition under Article II, Section 9 is a vote of no confidence. The outcome has not been decided. I do not decide it; the membership does. That is the entire purpose of the special-election mechanism: the community gets to weigh in. David's framing presumes the outcome of a vote that has not yet been held. If he believes the answer would be no confidence, that itself is something members can reflect on as they decide how to vote.

On the "thought-crime" framing that's appeared in this thread: the complaint cites public statements made on a verified, real-name X account. These are not interior thoughts; they are public speech directed at a public audience. Public speech by people in stewardship roles has always been a legitimate consideration when evaluating fitness for leadership.

Board members, and Champions in particular, are held to a higher standard than ordinary members. The Champion role is the officially recognized public-facing position representing HSL, and per the bylaws is specifically charged with "enforcing the bylaws," which includes the non-discrimination commitments in the Membership section and the standards in the Code of Conduct. Whether the documented public statements are consistent with the role of someone responsible for upholding those commitments is the question for the membership.

The petition under Article II, Section 9 does not require a stated reason. Some signatories have one, and it's the document linked above. I'd encourage every member to read the source materials before HYH and decide for themselves.

I won't be engaging in extended back-and-forth on the list. HYH is the venue for the discussion. If you have specific factual questions ahead of the meeting, I'm available by DM.

Thanks,
Moheeb

[David Lang]

These answers are targeted more at the rest of the membership than Moheeb, I do
not expect to change his mind.

Moheeb Zara wrote:

> Heatsync Labs membership,
>
> I'm writing to provide source materials so every member can form their own
> judgment ahead of the special election. David has shared his account of the
> petition; the substantive basis lives in a Code of Conduct complaint filed
> by seven members on November 30, 2025. That complaint has not been broadly
> circulated until now.
>
> Before any of this went public, I sent David a private message offering him
> the option to step down on his own terms. Had he taken that option, the
> petition would have been shelved, the complaint would not be circulated,
> and this thread would not exist. The point was to handle this
> professionally and privately, both as a courtesy to David and to spare the
> lab the reputational cost that comes with public conflict over board
> removal. David chose to make this public, which is his right; the documents
> below are what's now appropriate for the membership to see.
>
> The complaint (signatures
> redacted): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing

this is the first time I've been given a copy of this complaint. I was allowed
to view it one time before this

> *2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." *It was submitted; the

> prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for removal;
> that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no
> finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration.

an investigation did take place, a vote was held. what more is needed to
consider it an exoneration?

> *3. On "no complaints about my interactions in the space." *The pattern is

> not confined to social media.
>
> In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member, David
> has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is
> racist."

The Supreme Court has ruled the same thing (Harvard admissions case)

> In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal,
> when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board
> service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his
> disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to have
> sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the
> thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet
> hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and characterizes
> trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex.
> Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about board
> fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia
> prohibition is concerned with.

the context was that I was questioning what was meant by a policy barring
transphobes, etc and used that as an extreme example of what can be meant by the
term in questioning exactly what the polcy meant. I know that's an extreme
definition and quoted it in the discussion specifically to point out how the
term was nebulous.

> The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints
> from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one outside
> organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off
> only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.
>
> How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is part of
> how members experience that board member.

given that I have never mentioned HSL on X and never mentioned by X account in
HSL, and david lang is a common name, did they discover my comments, or were
they pointed at them? It's not like there are any significant number of people
follwoing or liking my replies.

since this has become an issue, here is a link to my account and you will see
that the vast majority of my comments are on technical things, and even most of
my posts on culture issues are technical. I am not someone spewing hate and
calling people names

https://x.com/david_e_lang

> *4. On "political viewpoint"* *and what the bylaws actually say*. The

> Membership section of the bylaws does protect political
> affiliation/orientation from discrimination, and it protects every other
> category named in the petition just as explicitly: race, gender, national
> origin, religion, creed, sexual preference/orientation, age, disability,
> software preference, and veteran status. The petition is not citing
> political affiliation. It is citing public statements that fall within what
> the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly
> prohibits: "Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise
> discriminatory jokes or language and personal insults."

you are not accusing me of making any jokes or personal insults.

I will argue that my statements are expressing opinions that you disagree with
(and it is your right to disagree with those opinions), but the language itself
is not sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I did not express fear or
hate of anyone in my statements. I in no way said or indicated that such people
should not be involved or that I would not help them

the one exception to this is that I was asked to be the point of contact between
HSL and an outside organization that falls into these categories. I declined to
be that point of contact and told the board that I would recuse myself from any
decisions about the group.

The reason, as I explained to the board is not that I am not willing to work
with or help any individual, but that the things that they were talking about
wanting to do would have put me in a position of not just accepting their
views and lifestyles, but having to endorse their views and lifestyles.

David Lang

> These statements are not isolated incidents. They form a pattern across
> multiple months and multiple protected-class targets. Any single statement
> might be debatable in isolation; the cluster is what the complaint is
> responding to. The complaint reproduces them with dates and direct
> screenshots so members can weigh the body as a whole.
>
> The Code of Conduct explicitly addresses two questions David's defense
> raises:
>
> Off-lab speech. Section 8.9 ("Scope") extends the CoC to "unacceptable
> behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such
> behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of
> community members." The CoC was written with precisely this question in
> mind.
>
> Application to board members. Section 8.6 ("Consequences of Unacceptable
> Behavior") states explicitly that "Unacceptable behavior from any community
> member, including board members and those with decision-making authority,
> will not be tolerated."
>
> Whether the documented public statements rise to that standard is the
> question for the membership.
>

> *5. Fitness for the role, beyond the statements.* Speaking for myself and

> not necessarily for every signatory: several of us also have concerns about
> David's fitness to serve on the board that exist independent of the public
> statements. In broad terms, these concerns include relatively short tenure
> at the lab and a pattern of resistance to established procedures and
> community norms. The petition does not require any stated reason, and the
> public statements are sufficient on their own. I mention this only so
> members understand that the protected-class concerns are not the sole basis
> on which several signatories question continued board service.
>

> *6. On "ordered to resign" and "bullying." *I want to be specific about

> Conduct. *Whether the documented public statements are consistent with the

> role of someone responsible for upholding those commitments is the question

> for the membership.*

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/56d227bf-ac11-41b5-86c4-a146fa0dcdb2n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert Bushman]

On 5/10/26 01:49, David Lang wrote:
>>
>> The complaint (signatures
>> redacted): https://docs.google.com/document/
>> d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing
>
> this is the first time I've been given a copy of this complaint. I was
> allowed to view it one time before this

The purpose of showing you the complaint was to give you the option to
end it without airing the dirty laundry in public. This practice at HSL
is a courtesy to the accused. The way one opts out of that private,
quiet, path is by publicly requesting for the complaint to be made
public, or by publicly denying the accusation without presenting the
evidence.

>> *2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." *It was submitted; the
>> prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for
>> removal;
>> that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no
>> finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration.
>
> an investigation did take place, a vote was held. what more is needed to
> consider it an exoneration?

"Unanimous for removal" is a much lower bar than would be required for
exoneration. Failure to remove under that process is not exoneration.

To consider it an exoneration, there would have to be a presentation of
the evidence to the membership and the membership would have to hold a
vote specifically regarding exoneration. That is the road we are a few
steps down right now.

>> *3. On "no complaints about my interactions in the space." *The
>> pattern is
>> not confined to social media.
>>
>> In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member,
>> David
>> has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is
>> racist."
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled the same thing (Harvard admissions case)

We hold to a higher standard than the current SCOTUS.

>> In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal,
>> when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board
>> service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his
>> disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to
>> have
>> sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the
>> thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet
>> hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and
>> characterizes
>> trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex.
>> Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about
>> board
>> fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia
>> prohibition is concerned with.
>
> the context was that I was questioning what was meant by a policy
> barring transphobes, etc and used that as an extreme example of what can
> be meant by the term in questioning exactly what the polcy meant. I know
> that's an extreme definition and quoted it in the discussion
> specifically to point out how the term was nebulous.

This is vague and presented without evidence. Given what we have seen so
far, it appears that withholding evidence is being done:

1) by the accusers to limit the blowback to the accused if they so
choose, and,

2) by the accused because they fear it would be compromising

>> The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints
>> from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one
>> outside
>> organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off
>> only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.
>>
>> How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is
>> part of
>> how members experience that board member.
>
> given that I have never mentioned HSL on X and never mentioned by X
> account in HSL, and david lang is a common name, did they discover my
> comments, or were they pointed at them? It's not like there are any
> significant number of people follwoing or liking my replies.

This is the most clear example so far of "Reverse Victim and Offender".
"Deny, Attack" has been presented amply in this and previous messages.
It is inappropriate behavior for a person with authority.

> since this has become an issue, here is a link to my account and you
> will see that the vast majority of my comments are on technical things,
> and even most of my posts on culture issues are technical. I am not
> someone spewing hate and calling people names
>
> https://x.com/david_e_lang

Showing that you only say prejudiced things sometimes is not a
compelling defense against accusations of prejudice.

>> *4. On "political viewpoint"* *and what the bylaws actually say*. The
>> Membership section of the bylaws does protect political
>> affiliation/orientation from discrimination, and it protects every other
>> category named in the petition just as explicitly: race, gender, national
>> origin, religion, creed, sexual preference/orientation, age, disability,
>> software preference, and veteran status. The petition is not citing
>> political affiliation. It is citing public statements that fall within
>> what
>> the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly
>> prohibits: "Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise
>> discriminatory jokes or language and personal insults."
>
> you are not accusing me of making any jokes or personal insults.

Agreed; it was covered by the "...or language..." part of that code.

The "jokes ... and personal insults" part is included because some
people attempt to excuse "language" violations - ie: substantive
expression violations - by claiming they were merely jokes or ad hominem
rhetoric.

The code is clarifying that even jokes and ad hominem rhetoric are not
acceptable. Substantive expression violations are worse, not better.

> I will argue that my statements are expressing opinions that you
> disagree with (and it is your right to disagree with those opinions),

You appear to be arguing that the opinions have been accused of being
prejudiced because the accuser disagreed with them. That is incorrect.

The opinions expressed in the messages are prejudiced. As a result, the
accusers disagree with them.

> but the language itself is not sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic,
> etc. I did not express fear or hate of anyone in my statements. I in no
> way said or indicated that such people should not be involved or that I
> would not help them

I was raised in a racist and homophobic culture and community, and that
behavior became normalized in me. It was a long process for me to
discover how my words and actions had expressed fear and hate. I am more
familiar than I wish to be with how easy it is to be unaware.

> the one exception to this is that I was asked to be the point of contact
> between HSL and an outside organization that falls into these
> categories. I declined to be that point of contact and told the board
> that I would recuse myself from any decisions about the group.
>
> The reason, as I explained to the board is not that I am not willing to
> work with or help any individual, but that the things that they were
> talking about wanting to do would have put me in a position of not just
> accepting their views and lifestyles, but having to endorse their views
> and lifestyles.

This is the first time I see you presenting the case against you. You
may think that this, presented in your own words, makes you look
innocent. You may think that it suggests you are fully capable of
executing the duties of an HSL board member. You would be profoundly
mistaken.

[David Lang]

Robert Bushman wrote:

> On 5/10/26 01:49, David Lang wrote:
>>>
>>> The complaint (signatures
>>> redacted): https://docs.google.com/document/
>>> d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> this is the first time I've been given a copy of this complaint. I was
>> allowed to view it one time before this
>
> The purpose of showing you the complaint was to give you the option to end it
> without airing the dirty laundry in public. This practice at HSL is a
> courtesy to the accused. The way one opts out of that private, quiet, path is
> by publicly requesting for the complaint to be made public, or by publicly
> denying the accusation without presenting the evidence.
>
>
>>> *2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." *It was submitted; the
>>> prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for removal;
>>> that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no
>>> finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration.
>>
>> an investigation did take place, a vote was held. what more is needed to
>> consider it an exoneration?
>
> "Unanimous for removal" is a much lower bar than would be required for
> exoneration. Failure to remove under that process is not exoneration.
>
> To consider it an exoneration, there would have to be a presentation of the
> evidence to the membership and the membership would have to hold a vote
> specifically regarding exoneration. That is the road we are a few steps down
> right now.

since when do Code of Conduct complaints get shared with the general membership?
The couple of cases that I know of in the last year did not have this done.

Why are Code of Conduct complainst confidential if they are going to be
presented to the membership?

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

I believe you kind of forced showing the complaint because you decided to make this public with this entire thread.

I'd rather this whole thread not happen but here we are.

"They're doing X to me"

Oh, snap, for real?

"Don't show what they're doing."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/r32r7r16-1s41-403r-p572-6sspp31946q5%40ynat.uz.

[Robert Bushman]

Agreed. Thanks, Luis.

While I prefer your more artful presentation, I'd like to restate what I
said in my message to which David was replying:

"The purpose of showing you the complaint was to give you the option to
end it without airing the dirty laundry in public. This practice at HSL
is a courtesy to the accused. The way one opts out of that private,
quiet, path is by publicly requesting for the complaint to be made
public, or by publicly denying the accusation without presenting the
evidence."

David may not have seen this play out during his brief time at HSL, but
it has; and just as calamitously as the path that appears now to be
materializing.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> I believe you kind of forced showing the complaint because you decided to
> make this public with this entire thread.

yes, when the complaint was a Code of Conduct complaint, resolved by the Board,
there was no reason to take it public.

But now the claim is that a person cannot be exonerated from a CoC complaint
unless the complaint is shared with all the members and they weigh in.

that's separate from me making this issue public so that everyone knows the
background for why there is a petition for me to be removed. They can now decide
if I am an evil person who needs to be kicked out, or if I am being picked on
and need to be defended. Without making things public, the people who are being
asked to vote would have no basis to make a decision

> I'd rather this whole thread not happen but here we are.
>
> "They're doing X to me"
> Oh, snap, for real?
> "Don't show what they're doing."

As I said, this is the first time I've been given a copy of the complaint
against me. I was allowed to view it once before this, but that was all.

I also wish this wasn't happening, but I am not willing to slink away and leave
people believing that I am acknowledging that I am guilty of something.

David Lang

[David Lang]

Robert Bushman wrote:

> David may not have seen this play out during his brief time at HSL, but it
> has; and just as calamitously as the path that appears now to be
> materializing.

there have been two suspensions and one outright ban in the short time I've been
here (that I know of), with one of the suspensions being contested. I don't know
how many other complaints there have been that were resolved by the Board

Even in the case where members had to vote to have the contested suspension
reviewed, no information about what the accusations were was shared. The review
decided that the suspension was not appropriate, but stil no information was
shared with membership.

In none of the cases (and nowhere in the bylaws) does it say that to exonerate a
person, the details of the complaint must be made public.

David Lang

[SM Newstead]

I am really ill at present and I can't contribute to much debate, but I want to say we've had other board members who believe stuff that could be objectionable, posted it in public under their names and even served on the board. They did well and their views never affected their performance. They left those views at the door. I am a marginalized person, asexual, profoundly disabled and female, but I still judge people by their actions. Many people have made me feel unsafe at HSL, and none of them were people who had opinions online (which I disagree with, as a leftist, btw). 

[Moheeb Zara]

This context feels necessary, after which I will continue to disengage from this thread.

Someone coming in who experiences a micro-aggression or overt prejudice is more likely to quietly never return. You will not hear of their bad experience, but their friends will. 

I have myself experienced aggression both overt and subtle from one of said former prejudiced board members (no need to name since they are no longer on the board). But I have been here since 2009 so it has not yet deterred me from keeping my membership, though it nearly did. 

Unless you are watching someone 24/7 you can never say for certain how anyone will behave at any given moment. What it feels like you are suggesting is that its possible because you didn't observe an issue with past vocally prejudiced members who posted disparaging content, that therefore someone relatively new to all of us must be capable of the same restraint you have observed with others in the past. 

I respect you are able to be confident in trusting them and I really do think it comes from a noble place to hold that perspective despite differing opinions, but per my experience (especially as a Pakistani immigrant) and the evidence I've seen, I don't share that confidence in regards to Lang. We must hold board members to a higher standard because they do carry some procedural authority and are stewards of the Code of Conduct.

Prejudice is not something one can simply leave at the door and public derogatory speech is still an act in itself that erodes trust and confidence, especially among those it targets. Hence the call for a vote of no confidence.

This was evident in the survey conducted by Phoenix Beyond Binary. Many marginalized voices in the PHXBB survey alone had stated they didn't attend hackerspaces in the valley because they felt unwelcome.

Key metrics: 
69 people said existing spaces don't feel LGBTQ+ friendly
50 people said they feel unsafe
76% of respondents identify as trans community

AFAIK heatsync is the only active space that refers to itself a hackerspace in the Valley. https://hackerspace.sh/atlas 

PHXBB is the same organization, whos mission was to create a safe space for trans makers/hackers, that Lang stated here that he did not wish to endorse by helping them. That recusal itself had an adverse impact on our reputation and kept a number of people from a marginalized community from coming to the space. 

I personally, as someone who falls under several of the classes targeted, and others like me do not feel comfortable or safe knowing someone with these expressed views is both a representative of the space and tasked with enforcement of our Code of Conduct. However, I leave it to the membership to decide and await the board to begin the procedures for a special election as required by the bylaws. 

[SM Newstead]

I think it's fair to point out the safety of trans people and the safety of spaces in general, particularly for marginalized persons. I think it is also noble to be concerned about their wellbeing and inclusion after many decades of the opposite. 

However, regarding your apt point about people "voting with their feet," many notable individuals are worried about this case. They are considering leaving HSL forever due to what they view as a "witchhunt" against their views or the prosecuting of "thought crime." At what point are you tipping the balance in the "other" direction by excluding those people who are also quietly not returning? Is it productive for our space? 

Should we accommodate another group whose mission differs from ours? Regardless of mission, why should any other hacker/makerspace be allowed to enter our space and dictate how we must operate and employ social stratification according to their own mission, which we do not follow? There are valid objections and valid conversations to be had, and raising them doesn't automatically equate to transphobia. They have an explicit mission for the safety of those individuals and I respect and support that. However, we are a separate organization with our own broader mission that encompasses all individuals. I am also an LGBTQIA+ person and I don't "endorse" anyone either. You cannot infer intent from anything, as people are not monolithic. 

I have heard from several people who are done with HSL forever because of what you're doing. Good people on both sides of the political spectrum are exhausted here. Many such people with beliefs you and I do not support served on the board, yet they swiftly and severely dealt with transphobia. This toxicity is more likely to drive away everyone, marginalized or not, at this point. You have created the ultimate chasm, severing long-time friendships and removing some of our best and most useful makers. We may never recover emotionally from the "over-pruning" of our flowers. 

The board will fulfill its fiduciary duty to uphold any and all bylaws as required by our membership, to which we are beholden. And then when October comes, I hope to never be on the board again and I strongly recommend people avoid joining the board for their own safety and emotional wellbeing. I believe anger at someone's views has outweighed basic decency here and I, along with at least eight others, am likely finished entirely. These ostracizing and stalking behaviors drive radicalism, polarization and frankly, violence, whether rhetorical or otherwise. 

Seriously, don't run for the board right now. You will be denied a card and treated like literal garbage. People will bully, threaten and hurt you. They will mock you for doing your best and mock you for doing nothing. They will ridicule your most painful personal situations and treat you with coldness and arrogance. When you break, they will say you should just not be on the board instead of taking responsibility for their cruelty. Your mental health will be at risk, just like the ELEVEN people who served on the board in the last fiscal year when I just filed our taxes. Nearly every one of those people has expressed pain and hurt to me directly. You want to remove someone from the board when we had a THREE-person board last year, and two of those members ran out of PITY, one on the very night of elections?? Asinine. Putting the cart before the horse, completely. 

This pattern shows certain individuals hurting other individuals in their quest for do-ocracy, often misapplying it as a veneer to violate others' rights. The bullying and hurt inflicted by this group affects so many over years. This group takes more than it gives and has bullied beloved people in a high school manner, using label makers, for instance, until they leave forever, then laughs about it at the bar. They tell people to just leave now, if they don't like them. They speak for us without consent or vote. I have served on the board for eight years and have heard every complaint from this group's victims. This is just their next method for amassing control according to their axioms about our space. I mean their space. This is so serious I am making this a public statement, which I do not do often. 

This isn't a safe place for trans people, because it isn't a safe place for anyone. We must do better, and this is not the way. 

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/2NQPoWnS-i8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/49a4535b-5dad-44d2-8c94-c41703326b7fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Luis Montes]

"Seriously, don't run for the board right now. You will be denied a card and treated like literal garbage."

I've avoided running for the board the last few years because I felt it was a failing of long time members to not be bringing in enough new people to keep the board churning.  That said, if one of you needs to step down, I'm available.

Also simply calling this a witchhunt is a complete disservice that ignores real concerns of multiple members.   

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAGmYP1S%3D40-J5aBC-CDG1hg-E%2BvW0ujdVbW4jJ7ZXPr23d3BzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[SM Newstead]

I said that's what they view it as, all the people who want to leave HeatSync, that is. Even some LGBT people, liberals. Not just who you think. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdDdkV235axQw5U3hSucBDik-OPWM1Nkk8zomVo7ykr9Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kirk]

I am new to HSL, and I am totally flabbergasted by what I am seeing.  Normally, I would prefer to put my thoughts together, but I am giving into my urge to react.

What I see happening is people playing with words.  There is this stupid idea that all opinions matter equally - that everyone has a right to their views and to express them.  This is BS.  The purpose of rules is to restrict the views of some people.  There is a rule that says people who are not trained on the lathe cannot use it.  Are we now saying just follow your vibes and use the lathe?  Rules are not theoretical, they are put into place to solve specific historical problems.  Someone in the past was mangled by a lathe, and so a rule was put into place to restrict some people's freedom in exchange for greater safety.  In the past, a lot of people of a particular sexual orientation or of a particular color or national origin were hurt or killed after demeaning words were used, so rules were put into place to not use demeaning words and so curtail the path to tragedy.  Despite the fact that historically there has never been a rash of white male American-born people being injured after being called gringo, the rule of being civil to everyone also applies.

What really ticks me off about this pseudo-intellectual argument that everyone has a right to their opinion, is that these pseudo-intellectuals are saying the opinion "I have a right not to demeaned" has equal weight to the opinion "I have a right to demean other people".

In summary, we don't have rights to every viewpoint, at least not in public.  Rules to restrict rights were put in place to solve specific historical problems, so ignore them at a risk to us all.  Stop the pseudo-intellectual BS that "all views matter" is some holy law given down by God to mankind.

We are at a critical point where we are deciding who we are and what we stand for.  I honestly don't understand why we are contemplating throwing away rules of civility that are on the books - what will we get in return? (see Chesterton's Fence)

[SM Newstead]

Lang has never uttered or written a single slur. I agree not "all opinions are equal," but no one is saying we don't still expect civility. Your analogy to the lathe is weak, because again, no one is talking about changing the rules of respectful rhetoric at HeatSync. 

Now if you think someone's X (which had no slurs) is public or private, I guess that's something we should define? I view it as semi-private or private. What's your perspective, Kirk? And it's good to meet you! 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/8cddc33b-59a5-4241-ae69-f33166c16433n%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert Bushman]

Slurs are not necessary to express prejudice. "Men are evil," would be
an expression of prejudice against men, but contains no slur.

Public messages on social media systems are public; they are presented
for the public to read. Direct messages are private. Group messages
range from private to public, depending on the nature of the group and
its access controls.

[SM Newstead]

Okay, I can see that perspective.  In that case, we have lots of people with public views that might be construed as concerning, and many of them served on the board. They have pretty consistently been good people at HeatSync. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/2NQPoWnS-i8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/f680ce00-65ea-42ea-afdd-ed6fbf84d8f0%40traxel.com.

[Eric Ose]

Some people suggest that the concerns being brought up about David have no negative consequences for our community. That is clearly not the case. Lang was the first to oppose inclusive language being on our website. As well as opposing the suggestion to withdraw our participation from twitter (AKA X) for allowing and even promoting racism. I consider those important lab decisions. Those instances have had me questioning if I should invite my diverse friends to the hackerspace. I shouldn't have to question or doubt if I should invite people to the lab.

One thing I see here is that HeatSync Labs is made up of mostly of imperfect people trying their best. Many mistakes are made and we keep moving forward. In the case of David though this isn't a mistake. His statements were pointed out to be aligned with racism and transphobia. Rather than find that to be a huge concern he has been annoyed with those who pointed it out. It isn't Moheeb's fault how bad David's statements look. It also isn't a hypothetical and has already shaped decisions at the lab.

Eric Ose

Robot Ambassador

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAGmYP1TgABM2xYJV7Cd5Dyjm5zsfWhHQ-QbEKmNHbB5FG7A1Hw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Bushman]

Those examples should be presented via the same process and considered.

[David Lang]

On Mon, 11 May 2026, Eric Ose wrote:

> Some people suggest that the concerns being brought up about David have no
> negative consequences for our community. That is clearly not the case. Lang
> was the first to oppose inclusive language being on our website.

I may have been the first to speak up about the language, but I was far from the
only one. The new language is better and IIRC, Brett drove the final discussion
on the langauge.

> As well as opposing the suggestion to withdraw our participation from twitter
> (AKA X) for allowing and even promoting racism.

I, and millions of others, do not belive that X is promoting racism. when you
allow legal speech, you allow speech you disagree with. I also pointed out that
every social media platform has bad speech on it, if you are going to start
banning platforms because they have bad people on it, you will ban every
platform (I'll point out the people celebrating and advocating for assasination
on BlueSky as an example, and Facebook has had it's child porn problems, ....)

any communications capability can be misused, that's not justification for
making it the lab policy to bar that that platform.

And the discussion where I objected (and where the counter to me went completely
unhinged, with people saying that they would rather see the lab closed down than
have conservatives as members) was not even a proposal being brought to the
members as a vote, it was a public discussion, yes, but in a slack thread which
is almost invisible to anyone not participating in it (and now, unfortunantly,
probably lost to time, how far back do we have slack history? I would love to
have people review that thread)

David Lang

> I consider those important lab decisions. Those instances have had me
> questioning if I should invite my diverse friends to the hackerspace. I
> shouldn't have to question or doubt if I should invite people to the lab.
>
> One thing I see here is that HeatSync Labs is made up of mostly of
> imperfect people trying their best. Many mistakes are made and we keep
> moving forward. In the case of David though this isn't a mistake. His
> statements were pointed out to be aligned with racism and transphobia.
> Rather than find that to be a huge concern he has been annoyed with those
> who pointed it out. It isn't Moheeb's fault how bad David's statements
> look. It also isn't a hypothetical and has already shaped decisions at the
> lab.
>
> Eric Ose

> Robot Ambassador <https://www.azrobotambassador.com/>

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAGmYP1TgABM2xYJV7Cd5Dyjm5zsfWhHQ-QbEKmNHbB5FG7A1Hw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[David Lang]

Eric Ose wrote:

> In the case of David though this isn't a mistake. His statements were pointed
> out to be aligned with racism and transphobia.

so now the claim isn't even that I am racist and transphobic, but that
statements I made 'are aligned with'?

David Lang

[David Lang]

Eric Ose wrote:

> Those instances have had me questioning if I should invite my diverse friends
> to the hackerspace. I shouldn't have to question or doubt if I should invite
> people to the lab.

Now I'm confused. Is the argument that as a MAGA leaning conservative I can be a
member, but not serve on the board?

or is it that I'm such an evil person that my merely being in the space is a
danger to others, so I need to be kicked out entirely?

David Lang

[SM Newstead]

I did do a survey about the language that was anonymous. Many people responded similarly to Lang. Many people answered the opposite too. I can share those results if wanted. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/2NQPoWnS-i8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/po1nq51n-p6rq-2887-r0r7-00r80po0soqp%40ynat.uz.

[Kirk]

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction." (quoted from Wikipedia - enough said)

It seems to me that the question being debated is whether or not David Lang committed a sin on X, and whether or not he should be punished for it by removal from the HSL board.  To me that question is a red herring, and the answer is irrelevant.  Removal from the board is not a punishment to David - there is no loss of salary or other harm.  Removal will not abridge his freedom of speech on X or anywhere else.  What removal does is separate his views from HSL views.  Removal is something to be done for the benefit of HSL, and not as a detriment to David.  It is that simple, so stop obfuscating the matter.

You can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are.  First impressions matter.  Those are two adages that have stood the test of time.  The question is, what image does HSL want to project to the world and its members?  Does HSL want to spend time and energy explaining that a swastika is really a sign that we are a very inclusive place since it proves we accept everyone?  I personally don't want to spend my time making that argument - getting rid of the swastika is a lot simpler, and keeping the swastika has very little benefit, if any.

A major aspect of a board member's job is to be the face of the organization and its members.  The issue is that David Lang cannot, have not, and will not do that aspect of the job that involves spreading HSL's message of tolerance.  The practical consequence of his failure to do the job he accepted is that membership, external partnerships, and funding will dry up.

In summary, ignore the unimportant distractions and focus on the key question - what is HSL's message to the world and its members? and do you want to be constantly explaining to everyone who will be asking why is there a swastika on the door?

[SM Newstead]

There's no hateful imagery either. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/2NQPoWnS-i8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/e0065b5f-fa75-4908-9374-4f47b3d43c8bn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

David Lang wrote:

> And the discussion where I objected (and where the counter to me went
> completely unhinged, with people saying that they would rather see the lab
> closed down than have conservatives as members) was not even a proposal being
> brought to the members as a vote, it was a public discussion, yes, but in a
> slack thread which is almost invisible to anyone not participating in it (and
> now, unfortunantly, probably lost to time, how far back do we have slack
> history? I would love to have people review that thread)

I found it https://heatsynclabs.slack.com/archives/CAWLL66LU/p1763950151780099
206 post thread

David Lang

[Kirk]

I think everybody here is smart enough to understand figurative speech and that there isn't an actual swastika on the door (yet).

[SM Newstead]

Okay, I just wanted you to be aware that there was no hateful imagery on 1.5 years of his posts either. That's what I meant. I think the risk of conversion is low. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/4b151e52-1968-483b-934c-5cbdbcef9389n%40googlegroups.com.

[mib....@gmail.com]

I have tried to remain neutral on this issue and I still intend to do so, but I had a statement prepared a day or two ago that I will post now:

  Having had cause to review the Code of Conduct with a fine tooth comb previously, I think there may be some misunderstandings on a section that's been quoted multiple times:

>> the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly
>> prohibits: "Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise
>> discriminatory jokes or language and personal insults."
>
> you are not accusing me of making any jokes or personal insults.

I am going to be pedantic for a minute and expand out this section, so bear with me:

 the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly prohibits:

Sexist jokes, sexist language, and sexist personal insults
Racist jokes, racist language, and racist personal insults
Homophobic jokes, homophobic language, and homophobic personal insults
Transphobic jokes, transphobic language, and transphobic personal insults
Ableist jokes, ableist language, and ableist personal insults
Otherwise discriminatory jokes, otherwise discriminatory language, and otherwise discriminatory personal insults.

I believe having read the complaint that the accusation is the use of transphobic language and otherwise discriminatory language. No one was claiming jokes were made, nor personal insults, but that is not the litmus for the code of conduct. The wording is intentionally inclusive that there are several categories that are unacceptable, whether its an insult, language, or joke in that category.

Mind you I should be "very" clear that I am not speaking FOR or AGAINST David in this case, nor am I saying that what the complaint alleges DID or DID NOT occur. I am just clarifying the code of conduct since while the CoC can be quite murky in places, in this particular instance it is crystal clear on what is and is not prohibited.

We also specifically call out in our Code of Conduct that it was intentionally modelled on the Geek Feminism Community Anti-harassment Policy. That policy is a bit more verbose on language, it states:

Harassment includes:
• Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
• Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment

It goes on to state

COMMUNITY NAME prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort
...
We will take all good-faith reports of harassment by COMMUNITY NAME members, especially LEADERSHIP TEAM, seriously. This includes harassment outside our spaces and harassment that took place at any point in time. The abuse team reserves the right to exclude people from COMMUNITY NAME based on their past behavior, including behavior outside COMMUNITY NAME spaces and behavior towards people who are not in COMMUNITY NAME.

Based on all of the above, I think the key takeaways for this discussions are:

1.) While not explicitly stated, it is strongly inferred by both our own code of conduct as well as the code its based on that comments made outside of the organization, "especially" on social media can be considered grounds for review by the organization.
2.) We have a very clear list of what languages are and are not allowed in the space
3.) We have had a formal complaint made, using existing processes, against a member of the board as a vote of no confidence, citing violations of the code of conduct.
4.) Currently, while we have a process in place for grievances against board decisions for unfair accusation or disagreement with a punishment from the board, we do not currently have a process in place for disagreement with the boards negating a report of a violation. Basically, if the board decides to suspend or ban someone, you can contest it, but if the board clears someone, that cannot be contested at all, and repeated CoC violation reports could be construed as harassment discouraging victims from reporting.
5.) Our remaining catch all mechanism has always been a member proposal to be voted on by the general membership.

To my understanding, while the handling and actions surrounding this proposal on both sides have been very distasteful, at the end of the day a call of no confidence was brought in line with our current bylaws and processes. Ultimately it will be up to the general membership to evaluate the claims of whether the statements made pass the litmus of violating the code of conduct and if doing so, they prevent David from fulfilling his duties as an officer of the board. I have spoken to people on both sides of this issue and what I have told people on both sides is the same "if you feel your position is the right one, you should gather a support base to make their support for you clear." Ultimately this will come down to a vote by the membership and as I promised when I ran for and then later accepted a position on the board, I will abide by what the membership votes. This lab is a community of multiple people. No one persons voice is more or less important, the community makes decisions as a whole. If the community decides that the lab would be better without David in a board position, i will abide by that. Likewise if the community decides that David's actions have not prevented him from performing his duties as a board member, I will abide by that decision as well. Either way, once the decision is rendered I will not tolerate further harassment or pursuit outside of our existing processes against either David OR the people bringing this proposal. I have to assume the people who brought this proposal did so in good faith, that they feel this is what's best for the community, and I have to assume once the community votes that we will have an answer on how the membership feels and I expect all parties to abide by it. 

Despite the severity of both the accusations and the processes that have been invoked, I have been very disappointed by both sides handling of this manner. We are a community first even if we disagree on something we can treat each other civilly and with respect and I don't feel that has been the tone this conversation has followed since it started. Both sides have front loaded ad hominem attacks and multiple other logical fallacies rather than simply stating their position and providing any evidence they have to support it. 

[Rick Blake]

At the root fop this, I'm trying to understand full this language in our Code of Conduit:

" The following behaviors are considered unacceptable within our community:"

Must my behavior in other communities, public forums, and with persons not part of Heatsync Labs also not violate our Code of Conduct?

I am coming to the opinion that the complaint against David is that his behavior in a public forum is in violation. Is that the intent of the code of Conduct? 

And in following this, I find in our by-laws:

"

1. Membership in HSL shall be open to anyone in the community with a genuine interest in the HSL's purpose, and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of color, race, gender, national origin, religion, creed, political affiliation/orientation, sexual preference/orientation, age, disability, software preference, or veteran status."

If certain political views are considered, by some, to be objectionable, their objections fall afoul of our 'conditions of membership'. This doesn't excuse objectionable behavior based on political affiliation, but it does seem to reject discrimination on that basis, and seems to say that political affiliation, by itself,  is not grounds for exclusion. Or other sanctions. Unless of course such affiliations result in unacceptable behavior.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/538c06f8-0115-41ce-8674-847e378aa4ccn%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert Bushman]

On 5/12/26 15:57, Rick Blake wrote:
> ... and seems to

> say that political affiliation, by itself,  is not grounds for
> exclusion. Or other sanctions. Unless of course such affiliations result
> in unacceptable behavior.

This is correct and an important point.

Thoughts and votes are private. I know at least two MAGA folks who are
(or were, when I was able to be there regularly) long-standing members
in good faith who upheld the policy in all regards.

It may be possible for an "Exterminate Ohioans" party to exist, and
merely stating support for that party would be a violation, but MAGA is
not that. Even so, it would be the expressive act of stating support,
not merely privately being in support.

The policy is about expressive acts.

> " The following behaviors are considered unacceptable within our
community:"
>
> Must my behavior in other communities, public forums, and with persons
> not part of Heatsync Labs also not violate our Code of Conduct?

There are three (or more) possible motives for that sentence:

1) To make members secure - within HSL's walls - from direct harm from
the behavior.
2) To dissociate HSL from people who engage in the behavior.
3) To protect HSL members from indirect harm due to the normalization of
the behavior.

Motive (1) is the obviously covered case.

Whether that sentence intends motives (2) and (3) cannot be determined
via textualism. To dig deeper on those, we can look at the context.
Thanks to Antonio's post at 2026-05-11t22:44 UTC-7, we have context:

"""
We also specifically call out in our Code of Conduct that it was
intentionally modelled on the Geek Feminism Community Anti-harassment
Policy. That policy is a bit more verbose on language, it states:

Harassment includes:
• Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression,
sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality,
physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
• Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs,
and employment

It goes on to state

COMMUNITY NAME prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged
people’s comfort
...
We will take all good-faith reports of harassment by COMMUNITY NAME
members, especially LEADERSHIP TEAM, seriously. This includes harassment
outside our spaces and harassment that took place at any point in time.
The abuse team reserves the right to exclude people from COMMUNITY NAME
based on their past behavior, including behavior outside COMMUNITY NAME
spaces and behavior towards people who are not in COMMUNITY NAME.
"""

That context and its citation in the code provides support for motives
(2) and (3).

The final decision, as Antonio notes, rests with the membership vote.

[Robert Bushman]

To clarify: "the expressive act of stating support" means "the
expressive act of stating support for the "Exterminate Ohioans" party"

[Rick Blake]

If one could be sanctioned for expressing support for a single political party, no matter how offensive or demanding, they can be sanctioned regarding any political party. Any. ,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/7165e80b-aee9-4517-b47f-b4cbd240b7f9%40traxel.com.

[Kirk]

I am trying to understand this recent exchange about political parties and the Code of Conduct.  Is it being suggested that David's speech on X is political speech, and/or that it is speech in support of a political party?  My takeaway is that the discussion is about the relationship between political speech and the CoC, but that would only be relevant if the speech is "political".  Could somebody address this, or correct my misunderstanding?

[Moheeb Zara]

This needs to be said. Republican/Conservative does not mean someone is bigoted or that they will be disparaging towards protected classes. We cannot paint all people of a political affiliation with broad strokes nor is that the intent here. 

Nor is bigotry/disparagement exclusive to one particular party. I have met self-described leftists/liberals/democrats with identical discriminatory views. It is a universal feature of humanity that we haven't yet figured out how to disable. 

The result of this discussion cannot be that we alienate members who simply share a political affiliation.

If Lang had said what he said in his posts as a democrat or a leftist or a libertarian, we would still be at this point. Primarily because he is doing so as a board member. His publically stated views are incompatible with the Code of Conduct he is meant to enforce. 

The complaint explicitly states this has nothing to do with his political affiliation. Discriminatory views are not a political position, party, or policy issue. 

We are also not asking for him to be removed as a member, simply to ask for a vote of confidence in his position, preferably resulting in someone better suited taking the role, since confidence and trust in him is at this present time, lost by a significant number of members. You cannot disparage protected classes and then expect those protected classes to trust you will protect them from discrimination in an OFFICIAL capacity. 

If a vote of no confidence passes, the outcome will not be precedent for being removed as a member for social media posts or thought crime. The outcome will be that we allow the membership to rotate leadership in-flight when confidence is lost in their ability (for whatever reason).

[Robert Bushman]

TL;DR: The Exterminate Ohioans Party example is a distraction that was a
mere philosophical meandering, and not well presented. You can simply
ignore it.

NLE;WTRM: I was not opining on the speech in question; I was exploring
Rick's hypothesis, "Unless of course such affiliations result in
unacceptable behavior."

I wondered, "Do I agree? Do I think that is possible? I don't think so.
But I've known Rick a long time and trust his thinking process, so let
me try. What would be required?"

If a party had two policies - one for genocide, and one in support of
birthday parties - a supporter might simply feel really strongly about
birthday parties. What if a political party had exactly one policy;
genocide? Would stating support for the party be stating support for
genocide?

I think so; but at that point, the hypothetical has been reduced to
absurdity, suggesting it is flawed as a general consideration.

It was an attempt, and a failed one, to apply reductio ad absurdum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[Kirk]

Bob, ipso facto, some of us are not as intellectually sophisticated as you and Rick, lorem ipsum, tempus fugit.  We would appreciate discussion closer targeted for a five-year-old :-)

My perception from David's comments is that this is a debate of conservatives versus liberals.  That his postings on X is protected political speech because it espouses conservative viewpoints. (To be clear, this is my interpretation of what David is saying, and he never said this as written.)  Your conversation with Rick seemed to be discussing if there is a loop hole in the Code of Conduct that allows an HSL member to promulgate hate speech if that is a stance of a particular party that the member supports.  Whether or not that is what you were actually discussing, I still am curious as to nature of the speech posted on X - is it support of a particular party or the member's own views (or does it even make a difference)?

[Kirk]

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the posts on X are support for a political party - can a non-profit legally support a political party?

[Rick Blake]

I'll make this as simple as I can. If the Code of Conduct has been written and/or interpreted as restricting a member's political speech if it might offend someone, it is flawed. The nature of politics is that any viewpoint can be described or interpreted as a violation of the CoC, because differing viewpoints often find those differing viewpoints to be unacceptable or derogatory. That does not, by itself, make anyone's political affiliation ' Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory'. Some more objective test should be made. 

But, more importantly, in this instance the accusation includes reference to commentary on public forums not associated with HSL. If that is sufficient for finding a violation of the CoC, then members could be in violation for anything they say, anywhere, and that is unacceptable. Further, while Board members do have a greater duty to the Lab and its membership, they cannot be denied the right to literally have a life outside of the Lab that might offend some, any more than any member might. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/453c082c-2f4b-43ea-b3da-993cd333ed71n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rick Blake]

And, Kirk, should public statements on public forums, made without reference to or identiciaiton with the Lab, by members, be described as claiming that the Lab supports those statements?

I say NO, and I do not accept that a member can be investigated, that public statements be found that might offend some other members, and a CoC violation be held against them. No. Our members are a diverse group. Some of them will, inevitably, hold views that at the least bother other members. So far as those viewpoints are not identified with the Lab, I believe they cannot be held as a violation of the CoC. 

The accusations against David go beyond his public statements, and those deserve scrutiny and discussion also. 

[Sara]

From a legal perspective 

Being on a Board is a privilege not a right

It is unpaid position whose sole authority falls under the board itself

Only a vote by the board is required to remove a fellow board member (not the full membership)

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 12:10 PM Kirk <kirkathea...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/453c082c-2f4b-43ea-b3da-993cd333ed71n%40googlegroups.com.

[Tony Brenke]

I made a post to the google group outside of this message.  it failed to show up.

been on the Google group since 2011. I live in the NW part of phoenix so I rarely get to the lab. second best was being on the email group. 

I did not address this thread in my message but it does fit exactly.

What I did mention is what HSL looks like from the outside from the digest of messages from the google group.

My outside view has seen this creep in over the last 2 years. I don't know enough to see where it came from or what started the mess.

what I do see from this, HSL looks like a toxic infighting group that I do not want to go to or recommend to anyone else.

way too much drama.

take it for what it is worth.

Tony

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 9:26 AM Luis Montes <mont...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Seriously, don't run for the board right now. You will be denied a card and treated like literal garbage."

I've avoided running for the board the last few years because I felt it was a failing of long time members to not be bringing in enough new people to keep the board churning.  That said, if one of you needs to step down, I'm available.

Also simply calling this a witchhunt is a complete disservice that ignores real concerns of multiple members.   

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:57 AM SM Newstead <smpne...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think it's fair to point out the safety of trans people and the safety of spaces in general, particularly for marginalized persons. I think it is also noble to be concerned about their wellbeing and inclusion after many decades of the opposite. 

However, regarding your apt point about people "voting with their feet," many notable individuals are worried about this case. They are considering leaving HSL forever due to what they view as a "witchhunt" against their views or the prosecuting of "thought crime." At what point are you tipping the balance in the "other" direction by excluding those people who are also quietly not returning? Is it productive for our space? 

Should we accommodate another group whose mission differs from ours? Regardless of mission, why should any other hacker/makerspace be allowed to enter our space and dictate how we must operate and employ social stratification according to their own mission, which we do not follow? There are valid objections and valid conversations to be had, and raising them doesn't automatically equate to transphobia. They have an explicit mission for the safety of those individuals and I respect and support that. However, we are a separate organization with our own broader mission that encompasses all individuals. I am also an LGBTQIA+ person and I don't "endorse" anyone either. You cannot infer intent from anything, as people are not monolithic. 

I have heard from several people who are done with HSL forever because of what you're doing. Good people on both sides of the political spectrum are exhausted here. Many such people with beliefs you and I do not support served on the board, yet they swiftly and severely dealt with transphobia. This toxicity is more likely to drive away everyone, marginalized or not, at this point. You have created the ultimate chasm, severing long-time friendships and removing some of our best and most useful makers. We may never recover emotionally from the "over-pruning" of our flowers. 

The board will fulfill its fiduciary duty to uphold any and all bylaws as required by our membership, to which we are beholden. And then when October comes, I hope to never be on the board again and I strongly recommend people avoid joining the board for their own safety and emotional wellbeing. I believe anger at someone's views has outweighed basic decency here and I, along with at least eight others, am likely finished entirely. These ostracizing and stalking behaviors drive radicalism, polarization and frankly, violence, whether rhetorical or otherwise. 

Seriously, don't run for the board right now. You will be denied a card and treated like literal garbage. People will bully, threaten and hurt you. They will mock you for doing your best and mock you for doing nothing. They will ridicule your most painful personal situations and treat you with coldness and arrogance. When you break, they will say you should just not be on the board instead of taking responsibility for their cruelty. Your mental health will be at risk, just like the ELEVEN people who served on the board in the last fiscal year when I just filed our taxes. Nearly every one of those people has expressed pain and hurt to me directly. You want to remove someone from the board when we had a THREE-person board last year, and two of those members ran out of PITY, one on the very night of elections?? Asinine. Putting the cart before the horse, completely. 

This pattern shows certain individuals hurting other individuals in their quest for do-ocracy, often misapplying it as a veneer to violate others' rights. The bullying and hurt inflicted by this group affects so many over years. This group takes more than it gives and has bullied beloved people in a high school manner, using label makers, for instance, until they leave forever, then laughs about it at the bar. They tell people to just leave now, if they don't like them. They speak for us without consent or vote. I have served on the board for eight years and have heard every complaint from this group's victims. This is just their next method for amassing control according to their axioms about our space. I mean their space. This is so serious I am making this a public statement, which I do not do often. 

This isn't a safe place for trans people, because it isn't a safe place for anyone. We must do better, and this is not the way. 

Virus-free.www.avast.com

On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 11:29 PM Moheeb Zara <mohee...@gmail.com> wrote:

This context feels necessary, after which I will continue to disengage from this thread.

Someone coming in who experiences a micro-aggression or overt prejudice is more likely to quietly never return. You will not hear of their bad experience, but their friends will. 

I have myself experienced aggression both overt and subtle from one of said former prejudiced board members (no need to name since they are no longer on the board). But I have been here since 2009 so it has not yet deterred me from keeping my membership, though it nearly did. 

Unless you are watching someone 24/7 you can never say for certain how anyone will behave at any given moment. What it feels like you are suggesting is that its possible because you didn't observe an issue with past vocally prejudiced members who posted disparaging content, that therefore someone relatively new to all of us must be capable of the same restraint you have observed with others in the past. 

I respect you are able to be confident in trusting them and I really do think it comes from a noble place to hold that perspective despite differing opinions, but per my experience (especially as a Pakistani immigrant) and the evidence I've seen, I don't share that confidence in regards to Lang. We must hold board members to a higher standard because they do carry some procedural authority and are stewards of the Code of Conduct.

Prejudice is not something one can simply leave at the door and public derogatory speech is still an act in itself that erodes trust and confidence, especially among those it targets. Hence the call for a vote of no confidence.

This was evident in the survey conducted by Phoenix Beyond Binary. Many marginalized voices in the PHXBB survey alone had stated they didn't attend hackerspaces in the valley because they felt unwelcome.

Key metrics: 
69 people said existing spaces don't feel LGBTQ+ friendly
50 people said they feel unsafe
76% of respondents identify as trans community

AFAIK heatsync is the only active space that refers to itself a hackerspace in the Valley. https://hackerspace.sh/atlas 

PHXBB is the same organization, whos mission was to create a safe space for trans makers/hackers, that Lang stated here that he did not wish to endorse by helping them. That recusal itself had an adverse impact on our reputation and kept a number of people from a marginalized community from coming to the space. 

I personally, as someone who falls under several of the classes targeted, and others like me do not feel comfortable or safe knowing someone with these expressed views is both a representative of the space and tasked with enforcement of our Code of Conduct. However, I leave it to the membership to decide and await the board to begin the procedures for a special election as required by the bylaws. 

On Sunday, May 10, 2026 at 3:21:34 PM UTC-7 smpne...@gmail.com wrote:

I am really ill at present and I can't contribute to much debate, but I want to say we've had other board members who believe stuff that could be objectionable, posted it in public under their names and even served on the board. They did well and their views never affected their performance. They left those views at the door. I am a marginalized person, asexual, profoundly disabled and female, but I still judge people by their actions. Many people have made me feel unsafe at HSL, and none of them were people who had opinions online (which I disagree with, as a leftist, btw). 

On Saturday, May 9, 2026 at 7:53:54 PM UTC-7 david.eu...@gmail.com wrote:

Robert Bushman wrote:

> David may not have seen this play out during his brief time at HSL, but it
> has; and just as calamitously as the path that appears now to be
> materializing.

there have been two suspensions and one outright ban in the short time I've been
here (that I know of), with one of the suspensions being contested. I don't know
how many other complaints there have been that were resolved by the Board

Even in the case where members had to vote to have the contested suspension
reviewed, no information about what the accusations were was shared. The review
decided that the suspension was not appropriate, but stil no information was
shared with membership.

In none of the cases (and nowhere in the bylaws) does it say that to exonerate a
person, the details of the complaint must be made public.

David Lang

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/2NQPoWnS-i8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/49a4535b-5dad-44d2-8c94-c41703326b7fn%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAGmYP1S%3D40-J5aBC-CDG1hg-E%2BvW0ujdVbW4jJ7ZXPr23d3BzA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdDdkV235axQw5U3hSucBDik-OPWM1Nkk8zomVo7ykr9Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Quinn Penney]

Pre script: This is literally my first time posting on google groups, forgive the formatting.

I'm Quinn - Founder of PHX Beyond Binary. Figured I'd drop in to give some outside context.

When I started PBB I saw HSL as a shining beacon of what is possible, something to live up to. Early on I spoke with Moheeb about receiving general support / advisory from HSL member, at his adviced I reached out to David Lang on Slack about how to setup time to do talks, or any other support HSL couple provide to a new hackerspace group. David directed me in LANDON's direction as "the better person to work with". Fair and fine I thought at the time, though I do wonder if the reason for not engaging was not that LANDON was better suited but because David's biased made him unable to provide support to the hackspace community in that way - though admitted that is speculative.

As time went on, PBB was in need of space still and more importantly we were hunting for 501(c) sponsorship - something that is not only rather important but also possibly lucrative to the sponsor from the fees taken. Around the same time LANDON approached me about possibly renting out space on some evenings to help bring extra cashflow to HSL, and he advised on who to reach out to about 501(c) sponsorship. Around almost the exact same time, the conversation in Slack pertaining to David Lang's persuations around racism and transphobia. Finding out about these opinions immediately and irrevocably removed HSL from the pool for sponsors we could viably accept, even to the point that I ceased further contact with the group and stopped recommending people go to HSL at all. I still cannot in good conscience recommend HSL as a safe space while David sits on the board. 

On to a couple points I'd like to make as the trans-fem in the room:

>> In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member, David
>> has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is
>> racist."
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled the same thing (Harvard admissions case)

The accurate version of the claim would be: "The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions at Harvard and UNC violate the Equal Protection Clause." That is a real and quite significant ruling, but it is not equivalent to "the Supreme Court ruled DEI is racist." The court didn't rule on DEI as a category, didn't use the word "racist," and the federal agency responsible for workplace discrimination law has explicitly stated DEI programs in employment remain lawful.

>> The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints
>> from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one outside
>> organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off
>> only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.
>>
>> How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is part of
>> how members experience that board member.
>
> given that I have never mentioned HSL on X and never mentioned by X account in
> HSL, and david lang is a common name, did they discover my comments, or were
> they pointed at them? It's not like there are any significant number of people
> follwoing or liking my replies.

Let's take a quick minute to talk about online footprint. Hell, I'll be the first to say, mine is not spotless. I have spent YEARS cleaning and there is still a lot out there that I am not proud of - but as adults we should all recognize that our public postings are just that, public. The words we put into the world have real meaning and real consequences. We are held accountable to them, even more so when we double down on them. Could it be someone else? There's 8+ billion people on this planet, so maybe. Was there sufficient overlap in the opinions shared on Slack and X to justify the comparison, yes.

>> In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal,
>> when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board
>> service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his
>> disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to have
>> sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the
>> thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet
>> hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and characterizes
>> trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex.
>> Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about board
>> fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia
>> prohibition is concerned with.
>
> the context was that I was questioning what was meant by a policy barring
> transphobes, etc and used that as an extreme example of what can be meant by the
> term in questioning exactly what the polcy meant. I know that's an extreme
> definition and quoted it in the discussion specifically to point out how the
> term was nebulous.

God ok, I thought this type of conversation was over but let's do this. Hi, I'm Quinn, I'm a trans women. There is no valid argument, none, in the concept of "Am I transphobic if I don't want to sleep with them?" and anyone that wants to use that type of logic is a bigot at best and actively hostile at worst. Let's talk about what it means to be trans real quick. The best way I can explain it is "I didn't choose to be right-handed". Even something like "I don't agree with it but if it makes you happy" is transphobic. Why? Because it makes the assumption that I'm "being trans" and that's like saying I'm "being right-handed". I'm not being that, I am that. Sure, someone could sit me down and break my right hand and tell me that "Being left handed is the proper way to be" but that doesn't change that I'm still right-handed, now I just have to figure out a broken way to exist because someone else decided what I am is wrong.

So to actually answer the question you raised: no, you are not transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans person. Attraction isn't a referendum, and bodily autonomy means you never owe anyone access to yours - full stop, no caveats, no asterisks. Anyone telling you otherwise is wrong, and I'd say the same thing to them that I'm saying to you.

But that question was never actually the issue, and I think you know that. The issue is that out of every possible example you could have used to interrogate what "transphobia" means, you picked the one that frames trans people as a sexual threat being smuggled past your consent. That's the part that matters. Not wanting to sleep with someone is autonomy. Reaching for "what if they're trying to make me sleep with them" as your go-to definitional edge case, in a thread about whether transphobes should serve on the board of an inclusive space, is something else entirely.

Being trans isn't a behavior you can opt into or out of, and it isn't a thing being done to anyone else. So when the framing of a question treats my existence as a pressure being applied to other people's choices, that framing is the transphobia. Not the question of who you sleep with - the assumption baked into how the question got asked.

Quinn Penney
PHX Beyond Binary - Founder

On Saturday, May 9, 2026 at 4:50:06 PM UTC-7 David wrote:

These answers are targeted more at the rest of the membership than Moheeb, I do
not expect to change his mind.

Moheeb Zara wrote:

> Heatsync Labs membership,
>
> I'm writing to provide source materials so every member can form their own
> judgment ahead of the special election. David has shared his account of the
> petition; the substantive basis lives in a Code of Conduct complaint filed
> by seven members on November 30, 2025. That complaint has not been broadly
> circulated until now.
>
> Before any of this went public, I sent David a private message offering him
> the option to step down on his own terms. Had he taken that option, the
> petition would have been shelved, the complaint would not be circulated,
> and this thread would not exist. The point was to handle this
> professionally and privately, both as a courtesy to David and to spare the
> lab the reputational cost that comes with public conflict over board
> removal. David chose to make this public, which is his right; the documents
> below are what's now appropriate for the membership to see.
>
> The complaint (signatures
> redacted): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing

this is the first time I've been given a copy of this complaint. I was allowed
to view it one time before this

> *2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." *It was submitted; the
> prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for removal;
> that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no
> finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration.

an investigation did take place, a vote was held. what more is needed to
consider it an exoneration?

> *3. On "no complaints about my interactions in the space." *The pattern is
> not confined to social media.
>
> In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member, David
> has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is
> racist."

The Supreme Court has ruled the same thing (Harvard admissions case)

> In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal,
> when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board
> service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his
> disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to have
> sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the
> thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet
> hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and characterizes
> trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex.
> Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about board
> fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia
> prohibition is concerned with.

the context was that I was questioning what was meant by a policy barring
transphobes, etc and used that as an extreme example of what can be meant by the
term in questioning exactly what the polcy meant. I know that's an extreme
definition and quoted it in the discussion specifically to point out how the
term was nebulous.

> The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints
> from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one outside
> organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off
> only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.
>
> How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is part of
> how members experience that board member.

given that I have never mentioned HSL on X and never mentioned by X account in
HSL, and david lang is a common name, did they discover my comments, or were
they pointed at them? It's not like there are any significant number of people
follwoing or liking my replies.

since this has become an issue, here is a link to my account and you will see
that the vast majority of my comments are on technical things, and even most of
my posts on culture issues are technical. I am not someone spewing hate and
calling people names

https://x.com/david_e_lang

> *4. On "political viewpoint"* *and what the bylaws actually say*. The
> Membership section of the bylaws does protect political
> affiliation/orientation from discrimination, and it protects every other
> category named in the petition just as explicitly: race, gender, national
> origin, religion, creed, sexual preference/orientation, age, disability,
> software preference, and veteran status. The petition is not citing
> political affiliation. It is citing public statements that fall within what

> the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly

> prohibits: "Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise

> discriminatory jokes or language and personal insults."

you are not accusing me of making any jokes or personal insults.

I will argue that my statements are expressing opinions that you disagree with
(and it is your right to disagree with those opinions), but the language itself
is not sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I did not express fear or
hate of anyone in my statements. I in no way said or indicated that such people
should not be involved or that I would not help them

the one exception to this is that I was asked to be the point of contact between
HSL and an outside organization that falls into these categories. I declined to
be that point of contact and told the board that I would recuse myself from any
decisions about the group.

The reason, as I explained to the board is not that I am not willing to work
with or help any individual, but that the things that they were talking about
wanting to do would have put me in a position of not just accepting their
views and lifestyles, but having to endorse their views and lifestyles.

David Lang

> These statements are not isolated incidents. They form a pattern across
> multiple months and multiple protected-class targets. Any single statement
> might be debatable in isolation; the cluster is what the complaint is
> responding to. The complaint reproduces them with dates and direct
> screenshots so members can weigh the body as a whole.
>
> The Code of Conduct explicitly addresses two questions David's defense
> raises:
>
> Off-lab speech. Section 8.9 ("Scope") extends the CoC to "unacceptable
> behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such
> behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of
> community members." The CoC was written with precisely this question in
> mind.
>
> Application to board members. Section 8.6 ("Consequences of Unacceptable
> Behavior") states explicitly that "Unacceptable behavior from any community
> member, including board members and those with decision-making authority,
> will not be tolerated."
>
> Whether the documented public statements rise to that standard is the
> question for the membership.
>
> *5. Fitness for the role, beyond the statements.* Speaking for myself and
> not necessarily for every signatory: several of us also have concerns about
> David's fitness to serve on the board that exist independent of the public
> statements. In broad terms, these concerns include relatively short tenure
> at the lab and a pattern of resistance to established procedures and
> community norms. The petition does not require any stated reason, and the
> public statements are sufficient on their own. I mention this only so
> members understand that the protected-class concerns are not the sole basis
> on which several signatories question continued board service.
>
> *6. On "ordered to resign" and "bullying." *I want to be specific about
> what actually happened.
>
> In November, seven members filed a written Code of Conduct complaint with
> the board, citing specific public statements. Filing a multi-signatory CoC
> complaint through the channel the bylaws provide for that purpose is not
> bullying. It is the formal process. The complaint was not acted on, and no
> communication about its disposition was returned to the signatories.
>
> Then this week, I sent David a private message offering him the option to
> resign on his own terms before a petition was filed. I made clear that if
> he preferred the matter to go to a vote instead, I would respect that. No
> individual member has authority to order a board member to do anything.
> What I offered was an off-ramp, not an order.
>
> The petition under Article II, Section 9 is a vote of no confidence. The
> outcome has not been decided. I do not decide it; the membership does. That
> is the entire purpose of the special-election mechanism: the community gets
> to weigh in. David's framing presumes the outcome of a vote that has not
> yet been held. If he believes the answer would be no confidence, that
> itself is something members can reflect on as they decide how to vote.
>
> On the "thought-crime" framing that's appeared in this thread: the
> complaint cites public statements made on a verified, real-name X account.
> These are not interior thoughts; they are public speech directed at a
> public audience. Public speech by people in stewardship roles has always
> been a legitimate consideration when evaluating fitness for leadership.
>
> Board members, and Champions in particular, are held to a higher standard
> than ordinary members. The Champion role is the officially recognized
> public-facing position representing HSL, and per the bylaws is specifically
> charged with "enforcing the bylaws," which includes the non-discrimination
> commitments in the Membership section and the standards in the Code of
> Conduct. *Whether the documented public statements are consistent with the
> role of someone responsible for upholding those commitments is the question
> for the membership.*
>
> The petition under Article II, Section 9 does not require a stated reason.
> Some signatories have one, and it's the document linked above. I'd
> encourage every member to read the source materials before HYH and decide
> for themselves.
>
> I won't be engaging in extended back-and-forth on the list. HYH is the
> venue for the discussion. If you have specific factual questions ahead of
> the meeting, I'm available by DM.
>
> Thanks,
> Moheeb
> On Saturday, May 9, 2026 at 8:52:16 AM UTC-7 Shane Allen wrote:
>
>> I’m no Board Member, nor am I a regular visitor to HSL, but I feel this
>> needs to be said:
>>
>> Appealing to nebulous “hidden beliefs” as justification to remove a Board
>> Member, especially when you have to go trawling through their social media
>> to find evidence of these “hidden beliefs,” is even less aligned to HSL’s
>> values than the posts themselves. Doubly-so because you’ve admitted that
>> David’s public behavior as a board member has been “exemplary”.
>>
>> To put it bluntly: Your argument is tantamount to accusing David of
>> thought-crimes, and then using those alleged thought-crimes as
>> justification to remove him from the board. It’s Bad-Faith on its face.
>> Even more so because, again, you’ve admitted that his actual behavior has
>> been exemplary.
>>
>> To be clear, Kirk, I’m not accusing *you* specifically of being a
>> bad-faith actor. I’m saying that those who are trying to remove David from
>> the board are doing so under bad-Faith pretenses.
>>
>> On May 9, 2026, at 4:09 AM, Kirk wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Bob beat me to it, and said it much better than I could - "radical
>> inclusiveness does not include including people who have a history of
>> opposing inclusion"
>>
>> I don't think anybody is trying to kick you out of HSL, just off the
>> board. A board member is held to a higher standard, because 1) a board
>> member represents HSL, and 2) a board member has greater power over HSL and
>> its members.
>>
>> Social media posts, like any publication, are one's inner thoughts and
>> beliefs. Decisions made by a board member are based on their inner
>> beliefs, as you made clear when you said "a board member has a duty to the
>> organization to [vote against something that was passed at a HYH] if they
>> believe the proposal is wrong". Examining social media posts is a valid
>> exercise to determine the inner beliefs that are guiding a board member's
>> decisions that often greatly affect HSL and its members. I don't think
>> anybody is saying that your public behavior in and around HSL is less than
>> exemplary. Instead, I think they are saying your hidden beliefs are
>> dangers to HSL and its members, because as a board member you make
>> consequential decisions.
>>
>> Besides the fact that a board member makes far reaching decisions, a board
>> member is a visible representation of HSL and its values. People
>> participate or leave based on their perception of the group's values. If a
>> person feels unsafe, they withdraw, and the group loses. It sucks that a
>> board member has to be a saint, but that is part of the job, even if it is
>> unpaid.
>> On Saturday, May 9, 2026 at 2:01:50 AM UTC-7 David wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Bushman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know nothing about this, so I can't say what the backstory is,
>>> but in
>>>> case that trailing sentence below is related in any way, let me be 100%
>>>> crystal clear:
>>>>
>>>> Radical inclusiveness does not include including people who have a
>>> history of
>>>> opposing inclusion.
>>>
>>> so if I have a history of opposing inclusion, even if unreated to HSL, I
>>> should
>>> be shunned.
>>>
>>> so what if people are trying to kick me out and I don't have such a
>>> history,
>>> should they be kicked out under the same logic?
>>>
>>> Is it enough to think that I have such a history without anyone
>>> testifying to a
>>> case of me opposing their inclusion?
>>>
>>> and do we really want to start hunting down peoples's social media posts
>>> for
>>> anything that could possibly be read as opposing some other group?
>>>
>>> Or should we stick to how a person behaves in and around HSL where we
>>> actually
>>> see their behavior?
>>>
>>> frankly, at this point I really don't know the backstory here either. I
>>> don't
>>> even know the current complaints against me. Just that there was a
>>> petition
>>> circulated and enough people signed it to trigger the new bylaws that
>>> were just
>>> passed to make it easier to remove a board member.
>>>
>>> And yes, I do recognize I'm being a bit aggressive here, I see no benefit
>>> in
>>> being quiet and letting the campaign against me go unanswered.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>> --
>>

>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/56d227bf-ac11-41b5-86c4-a146fa0dcdb2n%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/56d227bf-ac11-41b5-86c4-a146fa0dcdb2n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>
>
>

[Alyssa Clayton]

I'm just a casual heat sync labs visitor who subscribed to the email group to know what's going on at heat sync but I'm very invested; what did David post on X y'all, was it Nazi stuff? My friend thinks it's probably something about illegal immigrants, we're taking bets.

On Fri, May 8, 2026, 8:58 PM Luis Montes <louie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lmao just leave dude

On Fri, May 8, 2026, 8:43 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:

I have been told that a petition has been circulated to call a vote of no
confidence against me unless I resign by today.

My offense is apparently that I don't agree that every user of X is a Nazi and
deserves to be banned from HSL (in the long thread, there were people stating
that they would rather HSL shut down than to have any of 'those people' be
members). There were threats to kick me off the board at that time, but they
backed down when they realized how difficult it would be to do so.

They then filed a code of conduct charge against me, which tool several months
to get reviewed (holidays) and it was dismissed.

I don't know what is in the petition that's been circulated, I know the code of
conduct complaints were about posts I made on X before I was elected.

I keep my X posts completely separate from my other activites, I have never
posted anything about HSL there, I have never posted any of my X posts on any
HSL board. I don't even use the same email for X that I use for anything else.

But people out to get my found it (in spite of the fact that David Lang and even
David E Lang are pretty common names), and dug through my history to find things
they could take out of context to try and bully me.

I refuse to be bullied. If the membership decides that you have to be of a
particular political viewpoint to participate in HSL, then I will leave, but I
will not leave because a few members order me to.

There have been no complaints abut my actions or interactions with anyone in the
space, this has all be the snide "we can't have someone with THOSE views
represent the space" type of complaints.

It took them chainging the bylaws and in the process denying that they were out
to target any existing board members (including when I mentioned that I felt
that the entire proposal was targeted at getting rid of me), but it looks like
they may finally be able to kick me out.

I look forward to seeing details of this complaint (rather than the shadowy "we
have a signed petition, resign and we'll let you go quietly, or else")

For people who claim to be "radically inclusive", this is an intersting way to
be inclusive.

David Lang

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/2no0nqr7-n8o3-q73q-1r3p-2s870433439p%40ynat.uz.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAAhnbvtzgkjpjTfXbhwnBDxsL6ZXUsj-PbNjOY9nYQWE2jv0%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

Multiple people have asked what the posts were in question, so I am going to copy them over from the original complaint, sans the author of that complaints commentary on those posts.




These are the statements the membership has been asked to evaluate.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAOztAtf%3DUrrMVirGdQh1X-_zw-qcH0jyAwbeNM6AS8J0MWRL%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

We recently enacted a change to the bylaws to allow the general membership to call a vote of no confidence in a board member. Regardless of opinions on that change, it was voted on and enacted and is now a part of our processes and procedures.

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 1:21 PM Sara <mybgb...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAOztAtf%3DUrrMVirGdQh1X-_zw-qcH0jyAwbeNM6AS8J0MWRL%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Bushman]

On 5/12/26 21:46, Rick Blake wrote:
> I'll make this as simple as I can. If the Code of Conduct has been

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you believed party
affiliation could be a violation, in theory. I was trying to prove you
wrong.

[Kirk]

Bob and Rick, That is why I asked the question.  What you both were saying wasn't clear - and now we know why, because you were both saying different things.  This is a prime example of what might be the problem here - people might just don't understand the other person's viewpoint, and think they are saying something else.  We are heading toward a train-wreck, which I very much would like to avoid.  I don't think anybody is a monster, at least not yet.  I am working under the assumption that people have different beliefs that have held true all their lives, but are now challenged by the presence of others they don't understand.  I am trying to understand the beliefs of the other "side", and at the same time try to explain my beliefs and assumptions.  To be clear, I don't think there are "sides", because we all share the inability to understand what we don't know.

[Kirk]

Bob and Rick,  May I suggest the three of us take this offline (i.e. to Slack direct message), try to hash it out, and then return to this thread with any resulting consensus?

[Kirk]

As a general comment to the group, my observation is that some posters' speak in the format "X is how it is".  For example, and I am not trying to single out or shame anyone, as there are an abundance of examples from both "sides":

            "Only a vote by the board is required to remove a fellow board member (not the full membership)"

"X is how it is" might be true, and it might be false.  Just making the statement is not helpful.  If you could add an explanation why "X is how it is", that would be great.  Examples from real life to illustrate "X is how it is" would also be great.  There are no fixed rules as to how to be more helpful, but if you find you are making terse statements like "X is how it is", please assume you are not helping.  Maybe just assume the reader will automatically ask why "X is how it is" and provide an answer or elaboration in advance.

[Jaime Glasser]

Dear HSL,

I think this conversation has disintegrated into minutiae. I am sorry I have not personally been part of HSL in daily life like in the past. I brought art to the lab pre-covid and have been dealing with health and family issues the past few years. The bottom line value of HSL is the contribution to come make something and our community will help you actualize it. No matter who you are, your experience or status we can help you get it done. Labels aside I am one of the people who has always felt “different”. HSL gave me a place and provided unlimited support and guidance to make things and build things I could never had on my own. In return I tried to being support and new people in a win-win situation to the benefit of all.

Creative people can have a tendency to be outliers, this is a place where outliers gathered.

The bottom line is a Board represents the public face and legally represents the organization. The overwhelming welcoming of people , to make things, whatever their personal identifying labels was a hallmark of why I wanted to be there and support others. In a collection of people who may feel like “others” for whatever reason there may always be personality conflicts and differences.

But, to say everyone has a right to express private views that are in direct opposition to welcoming all who would like to be a part of the community especially as a legal representative of the community is just wrong. The arguments sound so similar to those being made that have drastically changed the country to make it okay to perpetrate hate and bigotry against many identities.

Where is “political” vs “human rights?” I think of “white lives matter.” For example. Conservative vs Liberal used to pertain to fiscal policy. There were many people who politically differed from me but they did not necessarily need to tell me. We were there to help each other make stuff.

If hate is justified as just a “political” stance where does that leave us? Not in HSL that I knew. Whatever kind of outlier you may be, if you feel the organization will not ensure it is a safe place for you you will not want to be there.

Regardless of the detailed specifics why would you fight for the ability to represent a group of people many of which you would not associate with otherwise? Or believe their differences from you make them a danger to you but it’s okay to be a danger to them?

HSL has always prided itself on being a welcoming community to anyone who wants to do something they could never accomplish on their own. The generosity was always inherent. 

If you do not feel kind and generous to help anyone to make something that stretches their abilities and imagination why would you be here?

I apologize for my absence but had to speak up. I do not think we are discussing politics here but community standards of belonging. 

If you cannot contribute to welcoming all to belong I do not think you belong and do not understand why you would want to.

A community has a right to determine equality of safety and belonging is a core value and principle that is required of its members.

On May 12, 2026, at 2:17 PM, Robert Bushman <rbb3620...@traxel.com> wrote:

On 5/12/26 21:46, Rick Blake wrote:

I'll make this as simple as I can. If the Code of Conduct has been

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you believed party affiliation could be a violation, in theory. I was trying to prove you wrong.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/768c4a46-7b78-4cdb-8cc8-8a0246c92ae1%40traxel.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

Kirk, in this case it is categorically not true. There are two mechanisms in place now to remove a board member, a vote by the remainder of the board or a vote of no confidence by the general membership. Our bylaws are "quite" clear on this.

MEMBER-CALLED SPECIAL ELECTION

1. (a) Right to Petition. A group of no fewer than eight (8) active cardholding members, or ten percent (10%) of all active cardholding members, whichever is greater, may submit a written petition to the Board of Directors calling for a special election for a specific Board seat. The petition must identify the seat in question and state whether it is being called to fill a vacancy, to hold a mid-term election for a currently seated officer, or to conduct a vote of confidence regarding a currently seated officer. The petition need not allege misconduct.
   
   
   1. An officer of the Board of Directors may be removed from office by the unanimous vote of the remaining officers in a Board of Directors meeting, or by a majority vote of all dues-paid members. A special election must be held within 60 days to elect a replacement according to normal election procedures.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/c3d6217f-c1a7-4aa2-b5c4-f94d107487c4n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

There is a difference between tolorance and endorcement. I felt that if I were
to be the contact for your group, organizing things the way you were talking
aobut, that would cross the line from tolorance to active endorsement. I told
the rest of the board that I would recuse myself from anything to do with your
group. (and that means that I would not object to your group either)

I also said that I would have no objection to teaching/advising anyone, either
technical skills around making stuff, or organzational issues around funding and
running a hackerspace.

I would like for people to go read through that slack thread and see what I
actually said, and the context it was said in, rather than just seeing
cherry-picked quotes.

David Lang

On Sun, 10 May 2026, Quinn Penney wrote:

> Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 01:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Quinn Penney <penney...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [HSL] I have been threatened and ordered to resign from the board

> thing being done *to* anyone else. So when the framing of a question treats

[Dave Bird]

As a member who only occasionally uses the facility, and always enjoys the atmosphere. I find this entire thread disappointing and off putting. Why can't we all just be avid creators first and foremost and leave the divisiveness out of the space? 

Bless you all.

Dave

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com.

[Kirk]

Hi Dave, I think everyone agrees with you 100%.  I know I do.  If you have any ideas as to how this can be accomplished practically and not just theoretically, please save us from ourselves.

[Dave Bird]

Hi Kirk,

For me, unless someone is openly threatening me or harassing me, I leave it alone. I guess we need a Sergeant-at-Arms who is empowered under the bylaws to investigate complaints and take appropriate action as needed.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/8de06e3c-7817-41ae-8f48-540d928d23e2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Luis Montes]

You know Dave there is one dude in this whole thread who's been talking about Trans men as "literally perverse. Usually predatory" and making minorities kiss his ring with arbitrary denounce your ex culture demands. If you can't tell what David Lang is, I don't really know what else to tell you.

Read his posts? He's not denying them, so I'll give him that.

He shouldn't represent us, voting no over here

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEvDxusY%2Brf-6NfWdfhVn%3Dcz51UMyB8ZxSf930AbRkcgG5bfHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kirk]

Hi Dave, Let's say you are right, that these words are physically harmless (and are not threatening or harassing in any way), and that everyone should wait until an attack is imminent to do something about it.  Let's go further and say physical harm is never going to happen.  There is still the harm of loss of funding and reputation.  Maybe also the loss of non-profit status?  As you can tell from this thread alone, let's say 50% of people don't like racism or homophobia - some of those people decide who gets funding and who doesn't.  Some of those people are reporters for the newspapers or websites.  This is not theoretical, it is real and has already started.  This is a well know phenomenon - there are plenty of examples, e.g. Twitter/X when Elon took it over, advertising revenue dropped precipitously, and the site immediately fell from being the premier site.  I am not saying money and reputation is most important, I am just explaining that the problem is not as simple as you think and goes well beyond bodily harm.

[David Lang]

Dave Bird wrote:

> Hi Kirk,
>
> For me, unless someone is openly threatening me or harassing me, I leave it
> alone. I guess we need a Sergeant-at-Arms who is empowered under the bylaws
> to investigate complaints and take appropriate action as needed.

We do have a Code of Conduct complaint process that is evaluated by the Board.
There awas a complaint filed about me with these posts and the board did
investiagte it.

David Lang

>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .

>>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/8de06e3c-7817-41ae-8f48-540d928d23e2n%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/8de06e3c-7817-41ae-8f48-540d928d23e2n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[David Lang]

Kirk wrote:

> Hi Dave, Let's say you are right, that these words are physically harmless
> (and are not threatening or harassing in any way), and that everyone should
> wait until an attack is imminent to do something about it. Let's go
> further and say physical harm is never going to happen. There is still the
> harm of loss of funding and reputation. Maybe also the loss of non-profit
> status? As you can tell from this thread alone, let's say 50% of people
> don't like racism or homophobia - some of those people decide who gets
> funding and who doesn't. Some of those people are reporters for the
> newspapers or websites. This is not theoretical, it is real and has
> already started. This is a well know phenomenon - there are plenty of
> examples, e.g. Twitter/X when Elon took it over, advertising revenue
> dropped precipitously, and the site immediately fell from being the premier
> site. I am not saying money and reputation is most important, I am just
> explaining that the problem is not as simple as you think and goes well
> beyond bodily harm.

It is the right of any private organization to say who they allow to
participate. If HSL decides that it is officially an organization that does not
want it's members to be MAGA/conservative/whatever, that it it's right and I
will cancel my membership payments.

But claiming to be inclusive of everyone (including, explictly, different
political views) and then telling me to resign (or some people are saying my
presense is a danger to others, which would mean I need to not be in the lab at
all) because of views that are mainstream or left of mainstream of the political
party that won the last Presidential election is not living up to the claims of
inclusivity.

There are vocal people here against me, I am getting people contacting me
quietly saying that they think I'm being reasonable. You can't count on how loud
people are on the list as a percentage of support. We will know that when the
peition is presented to the board, the board then schedules the vote, and the
vote takes place. Until then we can't know if more than 50% think I'm
unreasonable or not.

David Lang

>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .

>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion visit

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEvDxusY%2Brf-6NfWdfhVn%3Dcz51UMyB8ZxSf930AbRkcgG5bfHA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEvDxusY%2Brf-6NfWdfhVn%3Dcz51UMyB8ZxSf930AbRkcgG5bfHA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>
>

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> You know Dave there is one dude in this whole thread who's been talking
> about Trans men as "literally perverse. Usually predatory" and making
> minorities kiss his ring with arbitrary denounce your ex culture demands.

you put those words in quotes, I dare you to show where I actually said them.

my comments on culture have nothing to do with race. I said that if you are
immigrating to the US, you should be doing so because you think that the US
culture is better than where you are moving from. There are a LOT of immigrants
of all races, sexes, and any other category you want to list that believe that.
I welcome all of them to come legally.

I do strongly stand behind my statement that not all cultures are equally
good/valid. That statement should be something everyone can agree with
(otherwise you are saying the culture of the slaveholding south and nazi germany
are equal to your culture, I don't think there are more than a couple hundred
people in the world who think that).

Once you can accept that not all cultures are equal, then it's valid discussion
to talk about the relative goodness/value of the different cultures

I don't think that you would believe that redneck culture is equal to whatever
culture you classify yourself as. The fact that you want to throw me out for my
opions says that you don't think my culture (however you define it) is equal to
yours.

David Lang

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/93F5B1E6-8A73-4123-9BB5-CB4D1F98ADBE%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .

>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEvDxusY%2Brf-6NfWdfhVn%3Dcz51UMyB8ZxSf930AbRkcgG5bfHA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEvDxusY%2Brf-6NfWdfhVn%3Dcz51UMyB8ZxSf930AbRkcgG5bfHA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Luis Montes]

I dared.

If you come to the lab and I'm hosting, someone else with card access will have to let you in, as I will not.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/2op9s02q-q043-n237-pos5-o2s22ro16s45%40ynat.uz.

[Kirk]

Hi David,

Let us for argument sake say that everything you are saying is true, so we can skip having to affirm or refute each assertion.  Bear with me as we consider a few silly, unrelated and maybe not PC hypotheticals - there are no right answers:

Let say you have a boss.  Your boss has the ugliest baby you have ever seen, I mean really gross.  Now, pointing out the ugliness of someone who is not a coworker is not against the employee handbook, nor is it against the US constitution, nor any local or federal laws.  Do you:

a) tell your boss his baby is ugly

b) keep your mouth shut

c) tell your boss he has the most beautiful baby in the world

If your answer is (a) do you:

i) understand why your boss is upset

ii) explain to your boss that you have a right to your opinion

iii) understand why your coworkers don't want to be seen with you, when your boss is around

iv) dust off your resume

[Robert Bushman]

In the course of this thread, two things that have been postulated are:

1) Some speech which causes offense is not a CoC violation.
2) Some political speech outside HSL is a CoC violation.


If one of those were not true, we could end the inquiry. I believe we
cannot.


Q: Can speech be about a protected class, and give rise to offense,
without violating HSL CoC? Yes.

Example:

Person A: I believe that gender-segregated sports should be based on
gender assigned at birth. (not defamatory, personal opinion)

Person B: That's not fair, I was intersex at birth and cannot compete.
(reasonable for this person to feel injured)

That topic should maybe be avoided within HSL, but a person expressing
either opinion outside of HSL has not violated the HSL CoC.


Q: Can political speech outside of HSL violate the HSL CoC? Yes.

Example:

If a member hosts a weekly video clip show on YouTube titled, "Women are
incapable of rational thought and should not be permitted to vote,"
during which they present cherry-picked examples from reaction-bait
street interviews, they are in violation of the CoC.

[Kirk]

Although my previous post is lighthearted, it is not intended to be mocking.  There is a serious purpose.  I believe we have failed to understand what fundamentally matters to each other.  The barrage of logic and reasoning has not worked, nor has stating "facts" - it is just too confusing and exhausting.  I think we need to step back, laugh a little, get back to basics, and try something new.  As such, David, I am looking forward to your reply.

[Luis Montes]

You guys are typing so much, he wants minorities kissing his ring. Why is this hard? VOTE NO and we can see about removing membership status later

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/5393170b-7a5f-4c0c-a169-e9b1aa4e082cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Luis Montes]

Not looking forward to your response David, step down!

[David Lang]

I will also raise the question about what constitutes doxing

If I had said things as evil as some people are thinking, but had posted them
under the name 'asdaf', it would be a CoC violation for anyone to dox that
account and identify it as me (board member or not)

If I had posted anything as "David Lang, HSL Champion", that is me providing
information tying me to HSL, someone pointing this out is clearly not doxing

If I had posted anything as "HSL Board Member" identifying me would still be
doxing, but the board would have justification for an investigation for falsely
speaking for the board. who is doing the posting under such a name should be
know to at least the board (note I am talking about posting anything, including
thigns like upcoming classes)

If I had posted as "HSL member" it would still be doxing, and less justification
for an investigation (an identity is being claimed, but no authority)

In this case, I posted as David Lang (@david_e_lang) with the account tied to a
differenet email address than what I use for everything selse. This is not a
nonsense thing like 'asdf' but, is also not identifying myself as being in any
way related to HSL. It's not a "John/Jesus/Mohommad" level of commonality, but
it's a pretty common name. There is even a book written in the maker community
by a David Lang (don't remembe his middle initial). I have never posted a
picture there, I have never mentioned HSL there (that I can think of), I don't
believe that I have ever posted a link to anything I said in twitter to anything
HSL

Is hunting down those posts and publicising that I am the one who made them
doxing? what level of separation is needed before it becomes doxing

I am not at all claiming that the account is not mine, but I am raising the
question about how much investiation is appropriate to find the social media
accounts of a person who has not provided them?

David Lang

On Wed, 13 May 2026, Robert Bushman wrote:

> Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 03:55:23 +0200
> From: Robert Bushman <rbb3620...@traxel.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: [HSL] I have been threatened and ordered to resign from the board
>

[Luis Montes]

Since this thread sucks so bad, anyone got any music recommendations?

[Antonio Contrisciani]

As a point of order, Robert, no one in the original complaint claimed that David's political speech was the issue. They cited several examples that they felt were statements prejudiced against several protected classes such as minorities or lgbtq individuals or members of the religion of islam. It will be up to the membership to determine if they feel that davids statements were prejudiced against those groups. David, and several others, have repeatedly stated that this issue is about politics when it is most certainly not. This discussion has continuously gone off on tangents about political speech and I have been trying to act as a neutral moderator and steer it back towards and even point members to the original complaints lodged against david and the proposal which is a vote of no confidence in his ability to execute his duties as a board member based on the contents of several specific cited tweets. Nowhere in the original complaint did they cite that they want david out because he is:

republican
conservative
MAGA
right wing
christian
america first

This has happened repeatedly in this groups past where a hotly debated issue, with proponents on both sides, goes off on tangental tracks not even related to the original issue. 

In plaintext, the complaint alleges that davids statements were racist, transphobic, and anti islam. If those are true, this is indeed a violation of the code of conduct. The vote has been put forth to the member ship to decide if a.) this is true and b.) whether he can continue to perform his duties if it is true.

People on BOTH sides of this issue need to stop trying to make this out as an issue about politics or personal creed or beliefs. The question is really crystal clear. Did David's language usage violate the code of conduct. Period full end stop. No where in the original complaint did moheeb point out david saying "im republican" as a reason he should be removed or "i voted for XYZ" or any other political stance. They specifically said "these statements violate the code of conduct for the following reasons" and then asked the members if they agree or disagree.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/de0c88b3-6dca-4434-a4eb-637714603e06%40traxel.com.

[David Lang]

Robert Bushman wrote:

> 1) Some speech which causes offense is not a CoC violation.

I agree. I believe that my posts fall in this category. But I also accept that
other people do not.

> 2) Some political speech outside HSL is a CoC violation.

I agree, but with very tight limits around how the speech is connected to HSL.

If I identify myself as a member of the HSL board and say something, that
clearly satisfies this requiement. anything said can be taken as being official
statements

If there is nothing to associate an account with HSL, then I don't think what is
said matters to HSL. And clearly the HSL CoC cannot be applied to anything said
on such accounts.

Doxing is against our CoC, does someone being doxed retroactively make their
posts subject to HSL CoC rules? I don't think it should. It can affect people's
opinion of a person, but even the most vile things said in the past should not
be punished by rules that did not apply then.

In my other post on doxing I raise the question of how isolated an account needs
to be before tieing it to a person is considered doxing.

David Lang

[Dave Bird]

II think you guys just wanna argue. We can play hypotheticals all day long.  My point is is that you guys are arguing and hitting at each other and just making the entire hacker space seem unsafe. Let’s just be makers and knock this stuff off.

Yes, I will readily admit that I’m older Gen X and have grown up with sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me and I stand by it. I don’t care what you guys say about me think about me or others I really think we just need to all get along or ignore each other. Anyway I’ve said my peace and I’m out. 

Peace out.

Dave

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/687c29df-4e21-4532-a2da-89563c5e9140n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

This is not bout the original CoC complaint that was filed, this is about a new
complaint that I have been told about, that has been circulated around the
membership, but that I have only been told about

I learned it has been sent to the board, but not to me, so I still don't know
what the actual complaint that was filed

for all I known (and all that is required by the bylaws) the complaint may be
something as trival as "we don't think David should be a board member" with no
other justification. I could also be far more detailed, I don't know.

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

"With no justification" lmao

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/6on1p8so-4pp8-2r05-5q94-qs4pn8pn5068%40ynat.uz.

[Robert Bushman]

On 5/13/26 04:38, Antonio Contrisciani wrote:
> As a point of order, Robert, no one in the original complaint claimed
> that David's political speech was the issue.

Why are you telling me that? I made no such claim.

Attempts have been made to construe the statements as political, and to
frame political speech as inately protected. My post was in reference to
that.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

David, moheebs post, cited below for clarity, is "quite" clear on what the current complaint is and how it interacts with the original complaint. You have not only had a chance to review the complaint but have actively quoted it in responses.

Moheeb Zara <mohee...@gmail.com>	May 9, 2026, 2:38 PM (3 days ago)
to HeatSync

Heatsync Labs membership,

I'm writing to provide source materials so every member can form their own judgment ahead of the special election. David has shared his account of the petition; the substantive basis lives in a Code of Conduct complaint filed by seven members on November 30, 2025. That complaint has not been broadly circulated until now.

Before any of this went public, I sent David a private message offering him the option to step down on his own terms. Had he taken that option, the petition would have been shelved, the complaint would not be circulated, and this thread would not exist. The point was to handle this professionally and privately, both as a courtesy to David and to spare the lab the reputational cost that comes with public conflict over board removal. David chose to make this public, which is his right; the documents below are what's now appropriate for the membership to see.

The complaint (signatures redacted): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing

The bylaws clause invoked (Article II, Section 9, Member-Called Special Elections, ratified by the membership Feb 28, 2026): https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws#MEMBER-CALLED_SPECIAL_ELECTION 

The petition at present has 9 signatures. 

A few clarifications, because David's account contains specifics that don't match the record:

1. Timing. David has stated the cited tweets were "before I was elected." Three of the five tweets cited in the complaint are post-election:

- October 12, 2025 (three days after his October 9 election): LGBT-and-criminality tweet
- November 3, 2025: "predict the race of the culprit" tweet
- November 5, 2025: cultures-must-be-rejected tweet

The other two (February and March 2025) are pre-election. Dates are visible on the screenshots.

2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." It was submitted; the prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for removal; that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration. 

3. On "no complaints about my interactions in the space." The pattern is not confined to social media.

In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member, David has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is racist."

In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal, when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to have sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and characterizes trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex. Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about board fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia prohibition is concerned with.

The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one outside organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.

How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is part of how members experience that board member.

4. On "political viewpoint" and what the bylaws actually say. The Membership section of the bylaws does protect political affiliation/orientation from discrimination, and it protects every other category named in the petition just as explicitly: race, gender, national origin, religion, creed, sexual preference/orientation, age, disability, software preference, and veteran status. The petition is not citing political affiliation. It is citing public statements that fall within what the Code of Conduct (Section 8.4, "Unacceptable Behavior") expressly prohibits: "Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory jokes or language and personal insults."

These statements are not isolated incidents. They form a pattern across multiple months and multiple protected-class targets. Any single statement might be debatable in isolation; the cluster is what the complaint is responding to. The complaint reproduces them with dates and direct screenshots so members can weigh the body as a whole.

The Code of Conduct explicitly addresses two questions David's defense raises:

Off-lab speech. Section 8.9 ("Scope") extends the CoC to "unacceptable behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of community members." The CoC was written with precisely this question in mind.

Application to board members. Section 8.6 ("Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior") states explicitly that "Unacceptable behavior from any community member, including board members and those with decision-making authority, will not be tolerated."

Whether the documented public statements rise to that standard is the question for the membership.

5. Fitness for the role, beyond the statements. Speaking for myself and not necessarily for every signatory: several of us also have concerns about David's fitness to serve on the board that exist independent of the public statements. In broad terms, these concerns include relatively short tenure at the lab and a pattern of resistance to established procedures and community norms. The petition does not require any stated reason, and the public statements are sufficient on their own. I mention this only so members understand that the protected-class concerns are not the sole basis on which several signatories question continued board service.

6. On "ordered to resign" and "bullying." I want to be specific about what actually happened.

In November, seven members filed a written Code of Conduct complaint with the board, citing specific public statements. Filing a multi-signatory CoC complaint through the channel the bylaws provide for that purpose is not bullying. It is the formal process. The complaint was not acted on, and no communication about its disposition was returned to the signatories.

Then this week, I sent David a private message offering him the option to resign on his own terms before a petition was filed. I made clear that if he preferred the matter to go to a vote instead, I would respect that. No individual member has authority to order a board member to do anything. What I offered was an off-ramp, not an order.

The petition under Article II, Section 9 is a vote of no confidence. The outcome has not been decided. I do not decide it; the membership does. That is the entire purpose of the special-election mechanism: the community gets to weigh in. David's framing presumes the outcome of a vote that has not yet been held. If he believes the answer would be no confidence, that itself is something members can reflect on as they decide how to vote.

On the "thought-crime" framing that's appeared in this thread: the complaint cites public statements made on a verified, real-name X account. These are not interior thoughts; they are public speech directed at a public audience. Public speech by people in stewardship roles has always been a legitimate consideration when evaluating fitness for leadership.

Board members, and Champions in particular, are held to a higher standard than ordinary members. The Champion role is the officially recognized public-facing position representing HSL, and per the bylaws is specifically charged with "enforcing the bylaws," which includes the non-discrimination commitments in the Membership section and the standards in the Code of Conduct. Whether the documented public statements are consistent with the role of someone responsible for upholding those commitments is the question for the membership.

The petition under Article II, Section 9 does not require a stated reason. Some signatories have one, and it's the document linked above. I'd encourage every member to read the source materials before HYH and decide for themselves.

I won't be engaging in extended back-and-forth on the list. HYH is the venue for the discussion. If you have specific factual questions ahead of the meeting, I'm available by DM.

Thanks,
Moheeb

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/6on1p8so-4pp8-2r05-5q94-qs4pn8pn5068%40ynat.uz.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

You were the most recent mention, but certainly not the originator, among several people derailing the conversation into political territory. I am trying to keep the discussion civil and on topic

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/bd962895-f055-4b8f-b8dc-82e2872ed81c%40traxel.com.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> "With no justification" lmao

If you are saying that the petition includes justification, please share it.

I was saying that the peititon is not requires to include any justification and
I don't know what it says.

David Lang

[David Lang]

On Tue, 12 May 2026, Antonio Contrisciani wrote:

> David, moheebs post, cited below for clarity, is "quite" clear on what the
> current complaint is and how it interacts with the original complaint. You
> have not only had a chance to review the complaint but have actively quoted
> it in responses.

That google doc is the code of conduct complaint from November, not the petition
for a special election.

David Lang

> Moheeb Zara <mohee...@gmail.com>
> May 9, 2026, 2:38 PM (3 days ago)
> to HeatSync

> Heatsync Labs membership,
>
> I'm writing to provide source materials so every member can form their own
> judgment ahead of the special election. David has shared his account of the
> petition; the substantive basis lives in a Code of Conduct complaint filed
> by seven members on November 30, 2025. That complaint has not been broadly
> circulated until now.
>
> Before any of this went public, I sent David a private message offering him
> the option to step down on his own terms. Had he taken that option, the
> petition would have been shelved, the complaint would not be circulated,
> and this thread would not exist. The point was to handle this
> professionally and privately, both as a courtesy to David and to spare the
> lab the reputational cost that comes with public conflict over board
> removal. David chose to make this public, which is his right; the documents
> below are what's now appropriate for the membership to see.
>
> The complaint (signatures redacted):
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JcJ8Min3Ou1NKa9mVBXlhyLRI6RR0CqOi9K7LwU_J6Y/edit?usp=sharing
>
> The bylaws clause invoked (Article II, Section 9, Member-Called Special
> Elections, ratified by the membership Feb 28, 2026):
> https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws#MEMBER-CALLED_SPECIAL_ELECTION
>
> The petition at present has 9 signatures.
>
> A few clarifications, because David's account contains specifics that don't
> match the record:
>

> *1. Timing. *David has stated the cited tweets were "before I was elected."

> Three of the five tweets cited in the complaint are post-election:
>
> - October 12, 2025 (three days after his October 9 election):
> LGBT-and-criminality tweet
> - November 3, 2025: "predict the race of the culprit" tweet
> - November 5, 2025: cultures-must-be-rejected tweet
>
> The other two (February and March 2025) are pre-election. Dates are visible
> on the screenshots.
>

> *2. The earlier CoC complaint was not "dismissed." *It was submitted; the

> prior bylaws required unanimous remaining-board-member action for removal;
> that unanimous vote did not occur. There was no formal investigation, no
> finding, no stated grounds for dismissal. Inaction is not exoneration.
>

> *3. On "no complaints about my interactions in the space." *The pattern is

> not confined to social media.
>
> In person at the lab, witnessed by me and at least one other member, David
> has stated that he believes "DEI [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] is
> racist."
>
> In the January 26-27, 2026 Google Groups thread on the bylaws proposal,
> when I named transphobia as one of several values inconsistent with board
> service at a radically inclusive hackerspace, David's response framed his
> disagreement around "advocates claiming that if you aren't willing to have
> sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic." No one in the
> thread had made that claim. The argument generalizes a fringe internet
> hypothetical into the broader trans-rights conversation, and characterizes
> trans advocacy collectively as built around pressuring others into sex.
> Choosing that hypothetical as the framing example, in a thread about board
> fitness, is itself the kind of speech the Code of Conduct's transphobia
> prohibition is concerned with.
>
> The pattern has also not stayed inside HSL. We have received complaints
> from people unaffiliated with the lab's internal politics, and one outside
> organization came close to publicly disavowing HSL over this, holding off
> only after I gave assurance that the matter would be handled internally.
>
> How a board member speaks about inclusion, online or in person, is part of
> how members experience that board member.
>

> *4. On "political viewpoint"* *and what the bylaws actually say*. The

> *5. Fitness for the role, beyond the statements.* Speaking for myself and

> not necessarily for every signatory: several of us also have concerns about
> David's fitness to serve on the board that exist independent of the public
> statements. In broad terms, these concerns include relatively short tenure
> at the lab and a pattern of resistance to established procedures and
> community norms. The petition does not require any stated reason, and the
> public statements are sufficient on their own. I mention this only so
> members understand that the protected-class concerns are not the sole basis
> on which several signatories question continued board service.
>

> *6. On "ordered to resign" and "bullying." *I want to be specific about

> Conduct. *Whether the documented public statements are consistent with the

> role of someone responsible for upholding those commitments is the question

> for the membership.*

[Moheeb Zara]

Lang: "There is a difference between tolorance and endorcement. I felt that if I were
to be the contact for your group, organizing things the way you were talking
aobut, that would cross the line from tolorance to active endorsement."

God forbid you endorse someone's humanity and safety. 
This is literally the textbook definition of discrimination of a protected class.

Dave: "I guess we need a Sergeant-at-Arms who is empowered under the bylaws to investigate complaints and take appropriate action as needed."

We have that. 

The office of Champion shall be responsible for coordinating tasks between each office of the Board of Directors, assisting HSL membership in membership-related tasks, and enforcing the bylaws. 

Lang holds that office. Hence the lack of confidence. 

Lang: Is hunting down those posts and publicising that I am the one who made them

doxing? what level of separation is needed before it becomes doxing

Your username is your full name just as it is in the discord and I already personally know the other David Lang, author of Zero To Maker,  that you mentioned and he is a friend. I didn't have to dig. I just typed in your name and your public blue check verified account showed up. 

Lang: but even the most vile things said in the past should not

be punished by rules that did not apply then.

You made an islamaphobic post yesterday, after sharing your twitter link in this thread. 

Lang: This is not bout the original CoC complaint that was filed, this is about a new

complaint that I have been told about, that has been circulated around the
membership, but that I have only been told about

The vote of no confidence does not require a rule to be broken to be enacted. It was written such that it could be used to take the pulse of the community if they so choose, whether that be guided by concerning behavior or just because people don't like the way you are doing the job. I left the description field of the petition blank. I never even intended to bring up the original complaint. My hand was forced by this thread. If you had not posted this thread, you would have seen that when the petition was announced. 

I am not satisfied with your performance as a board member.

Pedantic arguing and semantics is unnecessary and fruitless. All it does is ignore very real concerns and cause more division and hurt feelings. For the marginalized members its really really upsetting to see people argue the minutiae of racism being debated as if it is a valid opinion in a way that prioritizes the comfort of the offender. 

Racism, islamaphobia and transphobia are wrong. Full stop. There is no room for debate on this.

[David Lang]

David Lang wrote:

> Robert Bushman wrote:
>
>> 1) Some speech which causes offense is not a CoC violation.
>
> I agree. I believe that my posts fall in this category. But I also accept
> that other people do not.
>
>> 2) Some political speech outside HSL is a CoC violation.
>
> I agree, but with very tight limits around how the speech is connected to
> HSL.
>
> If I identify myself as a member of the HSL board and say something, that
> clearly satisfies this requiement. anything said can be taken as being
> official statements

I will add to this, if the statements mention HSL it can count, if it mentions
individuals who happen to be HSL members, it could count (some cases where it
still wouldn't)

it doesn't just have to be official statements.

If there is an account that has a lot of HSL related content, then a post there,
even if not claimed to be official, and not at HSL could still be seen as
related to HSL enough for CoC rules to apply

David Lang

[Antonio Contrisciani]

You are laser focused on the google doc and not the rest of the post. The post IS the proposal to remove you. The google doc is present as both evidence of the previous COC complaint as well as a statement from the same signatories that they support the proposal and as a reason for the proposal.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/8128p934-5311-5192-6r5n-8062qr1172n0%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Moheeb Zara wrote:

> *Lang: but even the most vile things said in the past should notbe punished
> by rules that did not apply then.*
> *You made an islamaphobic post yesterday, after sharing your twitter link
> in this thread. *

So,in response to a thread floating the idea that if a group punishes people who
leave it, it should not couunt as a religion (for tax/etc purposes, because
otherwise a church is just a business).

I like that idea. That would keep a lot of cults from qualifying as a religion
for tax purposes. Islamic organizations would or would not qualify, based on the
policies of that particular group.

The Consitutional Freedom of Religion has been repeatedly held to be a personal
freedom (with churches being the free association of people excercising that
freedom. If the group does not allow their members to leave, they are denying
the freedom of religion for those members.

This is wrong for any group to do this (the Catholic Church in the 1600s did
this a lot, it was wrong then too)

This is not an attack on anyone at HSL, it is criticism of the majority of
Islam, but how many of my critics have posted far worse about various Christian
groups? what do all your bluesky posts say about Charlie Kirk's assasination?

While I don't pretend that I am perfect and have never insulted anyone, I don't
play the game of trying to please people by deleting old posts (the only posts I
have ever deleted were ones where I used the post to get a screenshot or video
of a technical problem to an AI)

I haven't gone and bothered to open the email in a browser to see what else was
cherry picked, but this was recent enough for me to easily remember.

nuance doesn't come through well in text, let alone short-form messages, if you
go through life assuming the worst possible interpretation of all such things,
you are going to spend a lot of time angry about things people didn't actually
say.

and as for me posting my twitter handle, with you guys selectively picking posts
and quoting others, I think people need to see what my posts are actually like.
Am I going out of my way to insult groups all the time or not?

David Lang

[Kirk]

I write software and build circuits.  I don't know psychology or any of those social science stuff.  So take what I have to say with a grain of salt.  You are all idiots.  You are typing at each other statements, thinking the other party is reading, analyzing, and determining by some logic machine that your statements are true.  The only thing you are concerned about is that if you have ten statements, then all ten statements are true.  The more true statements you have, the more you beat your opponent into submission.  Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.  There is something else going on here.  I am guessing it is emotion and not logic that is driving this "debate" (it is not a debate).  I think we need to figure out what is really going on.  I am going to go out on a limb and only guessing, but:

I think the David camp is upset that the "liberals" are trying to tell them what to do and think.  They are afraid that they are being forced to accept ideas and lifestyles of the other camp.  I say this because this theme keeps coming up no matter how many times the "liberals" say otherwise.

I think the Moheeb camp is fearful of bodily harm (the dog is barking and will soon bite) and is upset that they are aren't afforded common decency.

[David Lang]

Kirk wrote:

> I think the David camp is upset that the "liberals" are trying to tell them
> what to do and think. They are afraid that they are being forced to accept
> ideas and lifestyles of the other camp. I say this because this theme
> keeps coming up no matter how many times the "liberals" say otherwise.
>
> I think the Moheeb camp is fearful of bodily harm (the dog is barking and
> will soon bite) and is upset that they are aren't afforded common decency.

I would accept that as the view of the Moheeb camp (for both sides).

I would say if they think there is risk of bodily harm, then remvoing me from
the board (and explicitly saying I can remain a member and use the space) is not
the answer, calling the police is an answer, getting a restraining order from a
court to band me from the space is an answer.

I don't think anyone in the 'david camp' is trying to prevent anyone else from
accesing the lab, being on the board, or anything else on the basis of their
sex/race/politics/trans status/etc. If anyone did, I would disagree with them.
We are just demanding the inclusiveness specified in the bylaws include us.

the closest I have heard from anyone in the 'david camp' wanting to limit
anyone in the 'moheeb camp' is that I have had some people tell me privately
that they view this entire event has harrassment of me by others, and that CoC
violation needs to be addressed

David Lang

[Moheeb Zara]

Off-lab speech. Section 8.9 ("Scope") extends the CoC to "unacceptable behavior occurring outside the scope of community activities when such behavior has the potential to adversely affect the safety and well-being of community members." The CoC was written with precisely this question in mind.

Application to board members. Section 8.6 ("Consequences of Unacceptable Behavior") states explicitly that "Unacceptable behavior from any community member, including board members and those with decision-making authority, will not be tolerated."

A board member, who represents the space and has higher procedural authority over its members, posting troubling statements that target protected classes which offend and make marginalized members concerned for their well-being and wonder whether or not they can trust you to not discriminate does indeed adversely affect the well-being of those members. It puts them in a position where they have to question their safety, because the language used while being bad on its own, also mirrors that of people who are discriminatory and act on it. 

I have followed our established processes through this entire ordeal. 

[Luis Montes]

Moheeb camp associate here. Not afraid, just grossed out.  David doesn't even come to the lab. If I'm hosting, he's not allowed in! Good evening! See still waiting on music recommendations 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/a5f8a294-d103-4349-a735-6b53edd5dbeen%40googlegroups.com.

[SM Newstead]

I hope anyone who is uncomfortable with this will give us a chance in the future when this blows over however it will blow over. As a board member, I want to apologize to those people who expressed discomfort with coming to the space because of all this disagreement. I heard you and I respect your view. I valued your input here. 

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> Moheeb camp associate here. Not afraid, just grossed out. David doesn't
> even come to the lab. If I'm hosting, he's not allowed in! Good evening!

I went from being in the lab several days a week to being there rarely when the
CoC complaint was filed. I felt that with such a complaint outstanding (however
wrong) it would not be appropriate for me to be in the lab, so I was holding off
until the complaint was resolved. Since that took until late January, it got me
out of the habit of going in all the time (not to mention the complaint had it's
intended purpose of making me feel unwelcome)

what times are you the host so that I don't waste my time driving there?

David Lang

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/a5f8a294-d103-4349-a735-6b53edd5dbeen%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/a5f8a294-d103-4349-a735-6b53edd5dbeen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Kirk]

David, Can you see through Moheeb's eyes that even, if you have the right to say whatever you think, 1) some of the statements you made are demeaning, and 2) demeaning statements desensitizes and leads to violence?

Please, I am trying to focus the conversation.  The way the conversation has been going so far has not been focused and was not working.

[Luis Montes]

David, consider me as possibly hosting at any time, so save the gas and don't come. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/np0qr261-s42r-17pp-4oso-n2s1r489q339%40ynat.uz.

[Kirk]

Luis, I understand your anger.  I am going to ask that you hold off on the attacks.  David got the message.  Repeating it is just interfering with the conversation.  Please, as a favor to me.  Thanks.