<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body >Coming from some who has been present at the last 4 or so noise bridge weekly meetings.. I opposed making noise bridge a member only space. I was the one of the few who did at the meeting that was consensed.<div><br></div><div>As a result I have been around strictly to offer constructive ways off moving forward with a flawed decision to restrict access to noisebridge.</div><div><br></div><div>For instance, if only members, associate members, and their guests can be at noisebridge, then we must have a 'on the dirt road' way of verification. We know eachother by digital alias, and that is sufficient.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, in practice, and I understand this will change, I often arrive to a noisebridge that does not align with the current rule set. There are many hard and soft copies of key that have been issued to make the current decisions untenable. </div><div><br></div><div>I strongly encourage anyone with a sense of WTF to come to a meeting and resurrect Leif's proposal to revoke all member only consenssies. Two folks two meetings prior did just this but their proposal was blocked. Something similar but different could be brought back at some point. </div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Jake <jake@spaz.org> <br>Date:11/14/2013 10:16 PM (GMT-08:00) <br>To: noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net,Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net> <br>Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals <br><br>I agree with you that members of noisebridge should not have to identify <br>themselves online in this way, and I am willing to proxy-block on your <br>behalf and on my own volition as well. Although i suspect there will be <br>plenty of other people to block it without me.<br><br>I haven't been to the last few meetings and I think people are going a <br>little bit off-track, although i appreciate that they are trying to <br>improve the situation at the space.<br><br>My last proposal (which improves the language of the members and their <br>guests policy) was made to clarify the intent of the recent changes, but <br>it seems that it didn't get talked about since I wasn't there.<br><br>I think it is helpful to improve public awareness of who is a member of <br>noisebridge, but I think that obviously if people want to reduce awareness <br>of that (by requiring that the treasurer be asked specifically) that <br>should be their right.<br><br>-jake<br><br>Jacob Appelbaum wrote:<br>With that said - the above is rather sad but the following for next week<br>is really sad:<br><br>> A. "As a result of our prior conversation, we collectively propose: If a<br>> member has not identified themself as such by adding the Category:Members<br>> to their wiki user page by $DATE, they shall no longer be a member of<br>> Noisebridge."<br><br>I object and request a proxy at the next meeting to block this in the<br>consensus process.<br><br>Members of Noisebridge have a right to privacy and they should have a<br>right to decide if they disclose their affiliation with Noisebridge.<br>This robs them of that ability in a time when we face massive<br>persecution from both corporate and state actors.<br><br>Sincerely,<br>Jacob<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net<br>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss<br></body>