[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary

Shannon Lee shannon at scatter.com
Mon Jan 25 23:50:31 UTC 2010


I use a notebook and a pen, so rss-capable-feed-knurling isn't going to get
entries on my calendar.

And I don't think that anybody will be trying to track all the events that
are going to use all the resources:  I think that if you watch -discuss, and
you see someone post something that conflicts with something you were
planning, you should go, 'hey, i was already planning something then!' and
then see if you can work it out.

--S

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Kelly <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm way in favor of just
> > assuming people can manage to work it out when conflict arises, rather
> than
> > trying to work out some system to eliminate conflict.
>
> I think there will still be a considerable amount of working out
> conflicts, don't worry.  I'm not clear what you're suggesting here
> though. Do you oppose having a sweet calendar that one of our
> bright-eyed and bushy-tailed newbs has taken it upon himself to build?
> Or do you just want us to stop arguing on discuss? Cause man I'm SO
> THERE.
>
> > It seems like the natural way to handle this is to just have people post
> to
> > -discuss with an even announcement, to include whichever room or resource
> > they plan to be using, and let everyone use the calendaring/tracking
> > solution of their choice.
>
> Oh god, imagining all of that parallel data-entry is breaking my
> heart. Have you heard about the feed features our new cal will have?
> Everyone CAN use the calendering/tracking solution of their choice.
> Cause our data will be all standardized and shit.
>
> -K
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
> > This sounds like everything worked out fine.  I'm way in favor of just
> > assuming people can manage to work it out when conflict arises, rather
> than
> > trying to work out some system to eliminate conflict.
> >
> > It seems like the natural way to handle this is to just have people post
> to
> > -discuss with an even announcement, to include whichever room or resource
> > they plan to be using, and let everyone use the calendaring/tracking
> > solution of their choice.
> >
> > --S
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Kelly <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shannon Lee
> > (503) 539-3700
> >
> > "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
> >
>



-- 
Shannon Lee
(503) 539-3700

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100125/90a1fcfb/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list