[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Vlad Spears
spears at 2secondfuse.com
Mon Jan 25 02:00:37 UTC 2010
I'm not sure how contact info plays into resolving conflicts over
classroom or other resource use. Isn't the purpose of NoiseCal to
mark out use of a resource for periods of time in a single, accepted
system? If we have One True Calendar which is the only place to
reserve classrooms, conflicts become much less likely. I don't see
how contact info is a part of conflict resolution if a resource can't
be double-booked.
I tend to mark everything I do with my name, so my resistance to this
idea isn't something personal. So far, though, I haven't heard a
compelling argument for *requiring* identifiers or contact info of any
kind on NoiseCal.
Vlad
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:12 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> this seems a dramatic response.
>
> a problem did arise: conflict over use of a classroom.
> the way the discussion has resolved seems to be a
> general approach to promoting that a contact point should
> be included, no matter the form of the contact info.
>
> i request that, before you excitedly add to an email
> thread, you read the thread as far as it goes, and if you
> reply, please assume good will on the part of the
> participants and try to constrain the emotional content
> of your contribution, at least at first.
> of course, if others seem to pummel you with emotions,
> it seems good to me that you pull out your guns and fire
> back.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 15:17 -0800, Christie Dudley wrote:
>> So what you're saying is anyone who wants to lock in a room needs to
>> post their email addresses on the web? You do realize the
>> implications
>> of this, right?
>>
>>
>> There is a lot of "solving problems that don't exist" going on here.
>> If people hold events, they usually do some kind of promotion as
>> well. If there are events that show up on the calendar that nobody
>> has any idea what they are, whether there's an email address
>> associated or not, that are potentially blocking other events are
>> probably going to be targeted to get bumped.
>>
>>
>> This should go without saying to those of us who even give a passing
>> glance at the mailing list and/or show up to the occasional meeting.
>> I'd even be willing to bet all those that don't would have to do is
>> ask someone who's more active. (Which they generally do anyway.)
>>
>>
>> This is clearly a problem that's already been solved.
>>
>>
>> Christie
>> _______
>> Getting to the bottom of the hill is convenient. The view from the
>> top
>> of the hill is stunning. Where would you choose to live?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:14 AM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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