[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Kelly
hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 00:33:23 UTC 2010
Whoohoo we're making progress!
So, Jim is satisfied with an optional contact field, did you catch
that earlier? And I've always been in favor of it. I think we've all
been in agreement for a while now.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
> 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