[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Vlad Spears
spears at 2secondfuse.com
Tue Jan 26 00:28:37 UTC 2010
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:06 PM, jim wrote:
> the latest is that providing contact info is optional.
> so how can that hurt?
>
> recent discussion shows that contact info helps others
> add info about the event.
Recent discussion shows that people think it is helpful, but not how
it actually is.
> your example of an abandoned claim suggests others
> might want to contact the claimant to verify that the
> resource is again available.
I won't know it's abandoned unless I am in the space or hear from
someone in the space that this time slot is free even though it's
still in the calendar, so how would I know I want it? Unless I'm
paying attention to the calendar and comparing it to use, I probably
won't even notice it. After enough people notice a slot is un-used,
it will get taken off the calendar, either by its scheduler or people
who have decided to rectify its scheduler's forgetfulness or
unexcellent behavior. A scheduler totally unknown to Noisebridge
other than the contact info provided on NoiseCal is an entirely
different problem of broken community.
Either way, this hasn't been a problem yet, so why is it needed now?
> that contact info is optional seems to add to the value
> of an event calendar;
I'm fine with this, as long as it's indicated as optional.
Vlad
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 15:23 -0800, Vlad Spears 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