[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
Vlad Spears
spears at 2secondfuse.com
Tue Jan 26 00:54:52 UTC 2010
No. That's how I ended up hanging around with you at Noisebridge.
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Kelly wrote:
> 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