[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Jan 26 03:24:32 UTC 2010
"Jim is satisfied with an optional contact field"
i have to ask, why did you think differently?
i'll repeat that it seems this thread is a good
example of a discussion with a low [DRAMA] component.
rather than think of this as arguing, maybe this
is what it takes for people to air every last
<BADWORD>ing detail and anxious concern out to their
satisfaction. seems that way to me, and i'm okay
with that.
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 16:33 -0800, 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