[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary

jim jim at well.com
Sun Jan 24 19:55:19 UTC 2010


seems reasonable to me: 1 

a comment on this thread: it's been moderately 
lengthy, but has not veered off into [DRAMA] 
or other directions. i.e. it's a nice example 
of discussing an issue, seems to me. 



On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 11:14 -0800, davidfine wrote:
> I'm cool with that definition. The practical upshot is, if we get
> consensus, that events listed without a contact email address are not
> immune from being displaced by other events. 
> --D
> 
> 
> On Sun 24/01/10 9:49 AM , "jim" jim at well.com sent:
>         
>         
>         "significant resources" for now could be defined as 
>         reserved use of some area in the space and also use 
>         of electrical power. 
>         
>         "contact information" for now could be defined as 
>         an email address. 
>         
>         definitions could be changed as part of the self-
>         adjusting mechanism of responding to frustrations 
>         as we discover them. 
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 09:30 -0800, davidfine wrote:
>         > I'd rather stay open to pranks and malice than implement
>         something
>         > counter to our values. It's not like a plane will explode if
>         we don't
>         > IR scan everyone who edits our wiki. But as you said, we
>         have a right
>         > to insist that a person reserving "significant resources"
>         leave some
>         > contact info. All that remains is to define "significant
>         resources"
>         > and "contact information". 
>         > --D
>         > 
>         > 
>         > On Sun 24/01/10 8:48 AM , "jim" jim at well.com sent:
>         > 
>         > 
>         > i think your note below is right on. to claim 
>         > resources, all that's needed for sure is some 
>         > means of communication with the prospective claimer. 
>         > i don't see a need for validating the actual 
>         > identity of the claimer. 
>         > 
>         > i like the idea that claims on resources would 
>         > involve a member (not to say non-members should 
>         > not be able to use resources ad hoc, and "resources" 
>         > to me means things that are significant, such as 
>         > classroom space, electrical power costs, quality 
>         > of air, use of community effort...). 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 23:00 -0800, Ian Atha wrote:
>         > > We could have an optional organiser field for each event
>         > created.
>         > > During a meeting two weeks ago, someone mentioned that
>         "it's
>         > nice to
>         > > have events sponsored by a member". Anything other than
>         that
>         > is
>         > > impossible, or we would be fooling ourselves, given our
>         > current
>         > > infrastructure.
>         > > 
>         > > That's to say, I have no clue who "Ever Falling" is, if
>         they
>         > are a
>         > > member, or if they are to be trusted. I have no way of
>         > actually
>         > > associating that guy who introduced himself as "Leif" to
>         me
>         > with
>         > > "leif at synthesize.us", other than good faith. I have no
>         > problem
>         > > extending that good faith to people editing the wiki
>         putting
>         > a "name"
>         > > (or a moniker, or whatever).
>         > > 
>         > > If someone really wants authentication and authorization
>         for
>         > reserving
>         > > resources, I would really like to hear a full-fledged
>         > proposal. How do
>         > > we associate monikers with faces? How do we associate
>         > monikers with
>         > > usernames? Who validates that? Who says "thatha" is a
>         > trusted person,
>         > > but not "anonymous_user_1234"?
>         > > 
>         > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 20:59, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>         > > >
>         > > > makes sense.
>         > > > i wasn't worried about spam-like robots, mainly
>         > > > some way to manage contention for resources, also
>         > > > to minimize pranks and malice.
>         > > > non-logged in edits seem fine, but people so
>         > > > doing and who want to claim a resource should
>         > > > identify themselves somehow or another, it seems
>         > > > to me.
>         > > >
>         > > >
>         > > >
>         > > > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 18:35 -0800, Leif Ryge wrote:
>         > > >> So-called "anonymous" edits on mediawiki are really a
>         > misnomer - it is more accurate to describe them as
>         > non-logged-in edits, since they are actually attributed to
>         an
>         > IP address which is potentially much less anonymous than
>         > logging in with a pseudonym.
>         > > >>
>         > > >> The reason to allow them is convenience and the
>         increased
>         > participationn that results from that. People are much more
>         > likely to edit the wiki if there are no barriers to doing
>         so,
>         > and the small hassle of picking a name and password is a
>         > significant barrier. On the other hand, requiring login to
>         > edit achieves absolutely nothing, unless you also restrict
>         > account creation (which would obviously be a much bigger
>         > barrier and reduce the use(fulness) of the wiki). I'm an
>         admin
>         > on a couple of wikis which do require a login to edit, and
>         let
>         > me tell you: spam robots figured out how to create mediawiki
>         > accounts a *long* time ago.
>         > > >>
>         > > >> So, I think we should continue to allow non-logged-in
>         > edits on the wiki, and by extension the calendar, so that
>         > forgetting one's password (or not wanting to create yet
>         > another) is no excuse for not putting something on it.
>         > > >>
>         > > >> ~leif
>         > > >>
>         > > >> p.s.: notes from Ian and me meeting today are at
>         > https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/NoiseCal
>         > > >>
>         > > >> ----- Original message -----
>         > > >> >
>         > > >> > oh, i don't get why anonymous edits:
>         > > >> > anonymity seems antithetical to accountabilty, and
>         > > >> > it seems to me things that our community depends on
>         > > >> > ought to have some accountability track: who's
>         claiming
>         > > >> > what resources and why. requiring a name also reduces
>         > > >> > the vulnerability to malice and pranks.
>         > > >> >
>         > > >> >
>         > > >> >
>         > > >> >
>         > > >> > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 13:36 -0800, Ian Atha wrote:
>         > > >> > > Hey folks,
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > > Leif and I are meeting up at 2169 today circa 3pm
>         to
>         > brainstorm about
>         > > >> > > the implementation of the One True Noisebridge
>         > Calendar. If you have
>         > > >> > > anything you'd like us to consider now's the time
>         to
>         > speak!
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > > For your reference, voilá Kelly's specs:
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > > - Publicly editable, anonymously editable
>         > > >> > > - Publicly linkable
>         > > >> > > - Has the usual variety of calendar layouts (day,
>         > week, month, list)
>         > > >> > > - The usual calendar capabilities (description
>         field,
>         > repeating events)
>         > > >> > > - iCal feed, RSS feed
>         > > >> > > - Some sort of feed which can auto-update the wiki
>         > homepage
>         > > >> > > - Probably free
>         > > >> > > - Hosted locally(ish)
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > > And bonus options:
>         > > >> > > - Can use wiki logins or some other kind of
>         > identification in addition
>         > > >> > > to anonymous
>         > > >> > > - Events have a field for which room/area of NB
>         > > >> > > - Calendars show which room/area of NB
>         > > >> > > - open source or some other moral superiority
>         > > >> > > - easy publishing to email (for nb-announce, for
>         > instance)
>         > > >> > > - misc bells and whistles
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > > I'd heart you so much more if we keep this thread
>         > relevant!
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > >
>         > > >> > > -ian.
>         > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>         > > >> > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         > > >> > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         > > >> > >
>         >
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         > > >> >
>         > > >> > _______________________________________________
>         > > >> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         > > >> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         > > >> >
>         >
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         > > >>
>         > > >> _______________________________________________
>         > > >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         > > >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         > > >>
>         >
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         > > >
>         > > > _______________________________________________
>         > > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         > > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         > > >
>         >
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         > > >
>         > > 
>         > 
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         >
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         > 
>         > 
>         
>         




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list