[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Kelly
hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 23:41:54 UTC 2010
> I'm way in favor of just
> assuming people can manage to work it out when conflict arises, rather than
> trying to work out some system to eliminate conflict.
I think there will still be a considerable amount of working out
conflicts, don't worry. I'm not clear what you're suggesting here
though. Do you oppose having a sweet calendar that one of our
bright-eyed and bushy-tailed newbs has taken it upon himself to build?
Or do you just want us to stop arguing on discuss? Cause man I'm SO
THERE.
> It seems like the natural way to handle this is to just have people post to
> -discuss with an even announcement, to include whichever room or resource
> they plan to be using, and let everyone use the calendaring/tracking
> solution of their choice.
Oh god, imagining all of that parallel data-entry is breaking my
heart. Have you heard about the feed features our new cal will have?
Everyone CAN use the calendering/tracking solution of their choice.
Cause our data will be all standardized and shit.
-K
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
> This sounds like everything worked out fine. I'm way in favor of just
> assuming people can manage to work it out when conflict arises, rather than
> trying to work out some system to eliminate conflict.
>
> It seems like the natural way to handle this is to just have people post to
> -discuss with an even announcement, to include whichever room or resource
> they plan to be using, and let everyone use the calendaring/tracking
> solution of their choice.
>
> --S
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:11 PM, 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
>
>
>
> --
> Shannon Lee
> (503) 539-3700
>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list