[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Vlad Spears
spears at 2secondfuse.com
Tue Jan 26 00:39:59 UTC 2010
LOL! Yeah, I knew that... I was just discussing. It's part of the
socialization process for all those reading along.
Vlad
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Kelly wrote:
> 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