[Noisebridge-discuss] Should NB mirror WikiLeaks?

[Albert Sweigart]

Ryan, could you email me what your private concerns were? Your other
points are valid (though I don't outright agree with them), but I
wonder if you've considered anything I haven't.

It seems moot to either block or come to consensus on this issue.
Either someone will use wikileaks.noisebridge.net to mirror wikileaks,
using NB's server and bandwidth or their own. Or nobody will step up
and the issue goes away by itself. I don't see how Noisebridge's
consensus process can affect or negate these actions either way.

-Al

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Rameen <emprameen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that NB shouldn't host an extremely controversial website that's
> under attack by multiple nations. I'm not opposed, however, to NB teaching
> about or being in favor of site! NB is just one or two or three hosts,
> whereas NB members provide the real power of numbers.
>
>  Teach a person to fish...
>
> My opinion is that Noisebridge should, as an legal organization, be
> politically anti partisan in regards to WL. NB is our haven and our hub, and
> it's best not to draw any attention to it when the real impact can be made
> without holding NB responsible.
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Ryan Castellucci
> <ryan.castellucci at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Android's gmail client needs a confirm for the send function
>>
>> ... I had some other concerns that were resolved privately, so I'll back
>> down from blocking, but I still think we shouldn't do it.
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2010 11:12 AM, "Ryan Castellucci" <ryan.castellucci at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I think that noisebridge would present an easy target for the government
>> > if
>> > we hosted a mirror. I also feel that wikileaks is already mirrored
>> > across
>> > many other places that are much harder to attack in that way - they will
>> > be
>> > fine without us mirroring them.
>> >
>> > The value that noisebridge provides by continuing to exist makes it not
>> > worth the risk.
>> >
>> > I had some other concerns that were resolved privately,
>> > On Dec 8, 2010 10:40 AM, "Rachel McConnell" <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
>> >> Can you specify your objection so it can be discussed? Simply stating
>> >> intention to block doesn't forward the creation of a compromise, which
>> >> is the real goal of consensus decision making.
>> >>
>> >> Rachel
>> >>
>> >> Ryan Castellucci wrote:
>> >>> As a current member in good standing, I'm blocking consensus regarding
>> >>> Noisebridge sponsoring a WikiLeaks mirror. It's difficult for me to
>> >>> attend the Tuesday meetings, so I request someone bring up my
>> >>> objection if it's discussed.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>>> How about we put it to a vote?
>> >>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>