[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Jan 26 00:01:17 UTC 2010
+1 : relaxed discussion is great.
-1 : announcing to the mailing list strikes me
as a poor sole choice--announcements for ongoing
events fade away; the wiki events list remains,
and i like it, speaking personally, of course.
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 15:18 -0800, Shannon Lee 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."
> _______________________________________________
> 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