[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Ian Atha
thatha at thatha.org
Mon Jan 25 22:20:11 UTC 2010
My plan is to provide an organiser field, but not make it required.
Generally the expected user experience is for people to be "nudged" a
bit by the software to provide a name, or a moniker, but not
required--so if someone is opposed to that they can just skip it.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 14:11, Kelly <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think contact info is the key to solving
> space-scheduling-conflict. The recent classroom conflict that we had
> was actually caused by not having a centralized, well-organized
> listing for events. The event which created the overlap was scheduled
> by a new member who didn't know the protocol for hosting events in the
> space and decided to just dive in, which I can respect. I actually
> emailed her after she posted about her event, and sent her the FAQ,
> encouraging her to stay involved and be excellent. And somehow
> between the two of us we STILL didn't notice the overlap.
>
> Anyway, the end result was that the Linux group was meeting in the
> room she intended to use, so she used the church classroom, and that
> left BayCat out on the couches. I think it worked out ok, but I think
> this sort of thing is going to keep happening unless we have a single,
> easy to use system that's open to everyone. I think that the required
> login & permissions was actually the reason you hadn't put the Linux
> group on the google cal, right Jim?
>
> It seems like at this point, the debate has boiled down to requiring
> contact information for events. It seems there's significant
> opposition to that (and I'm on that team as well) so I expect we'll go
> with the standard consensus practice of keeping the status quo (no
> contact info required). I think that good faith and reasonable
> attempts at excellence should suffice beyond that.
>
> So, er, basically I agree with Vlad. All we need is the One True Calendar.
>
> -K
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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