[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Kelly
hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 00:43:42 UTC 2010
your mother has a socialization process?
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
> 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