[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Kelly
hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 23:36:55 UTC 2010
Contact info is useful because your "it will be apparent when you're
in the space" strategy doesn't always work. I agree that it's sort of
the baseline for this sort of thing. But for instance, here are a
couple of situations where contact info is important:
-Events don't all start at the same time, but they may still conflict.
If I'm scheduled 7-9, but someone else is scheduled 8-10, I can't very
well just see if they show up before I decide to take their room. This
has been a problem in the past.
-Non-members often schedule events without much understanding of the
effect they might have on the space. It's useful to be able to contact
them and point them at the relevant wiki pages and help prevent them
from creating drama unintentionally.
-One-time, larger events can really take over the space. When someone
schedules one, it's useful to be able to ask them about details like
how much space they'll be taking up, where, and maybe actually to
inform them that some adjustment they're unaware of will significantly
improve the space-using situation. This has been a problem in the
past.
Anyway, I think the main reason to have contact info is because often
(and this is kinda amazing to me) the first thing a new non-member
does is put on an event in the space. And... yeah. I think we need to
be able to communicate with them.
-K
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
> I'm not a fan of creating a second-class rating for reservations without
> contact info. I object to the idea of including contact info at all, but
> could be convinced of its use as clearly optional if someone can give me
> good reasons for it.
>
> Here's a summary of my objections:
>
> Contact information is not necessary for this function. It might make some
> feel better about potential problems with bookings or stale schedules, but I
> haven't been able to figure out how it makes things better in practice.
>
> To break this down:
>
> If someone abandons a booking, it will be apparent should someone in the
> space want to use it at the time it is booked without the need to contact
> anyone. No contact info needed there.
>
> If someone fakes a reservation, they will also use fake contact info.
> Contact info is pointless in that scenario and even lends itself to creating
> more confusion and a false perception that a booking is legit just because
> it has contact info on it. When this occurs, would we then have someone
> calling contact info at the time of reservation to verify it as legit and
> save on frustration later?
>
> Contact info in scheduling is a slippery slope. If the field is there, new
> people may assume they should fill it in, when I hope instead they will
> question its necessity. Contact info may be thought of by some as a form of
> identification, which might lead to the idea identification should be
> required in the future.
>
> All of the above is secondary and does includes some speculation.
>
> My main objection is that I still have not heard any compelling argument for
> why contact info is useful, given our general lack of past frustrations or
> problems which could have been resolved more easily had contact info been
> available. If it isn't hasn't been needed, why do we want it?
>
> Vlad
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 2:34 PM, jim wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> i don't get the objection to some kind of contact
>> information.
>>
>> the current policy is to put a contact field along
>> with resource reservation that one can fill in if one
>> likes. note that there's no requirement for any
>> particular type of contact information.
>> that seems to me to address any objections to the
>> current proposal--if one doesn't want to put one's
>> contact info, one needn't.
>>
>> i recall some mention that, without contact info, a
>> claim might be more likely to be bumped in favor of one
>> with contact info.
>> with respect to the idea that writing in such a
>> policy is solving a problem before it arises, the
>> implication is that if it does arise, people are likely
>> to be more frustrated without the idea explicitly
>> written.
>>
>> to me, such writings express policies, which are
>> guidelines meant to provide a common frame of reference
>> for minimizing frustration.
>> it occurs to me that it's possible to perceive such
>> writings as rules that must be policed and enforced.
>> is there something to that?
>>
>> i'm still interested in understanding the objection
>> to some unspecified type of contact info.
>> my understanding of consensus is that the point is
>> to negotiate differences so's to accommodate all
>> parties. i.e., please explain your objection with an
>> eye to allowing resolution.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 14:11 -0800, Kelly 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