[Noisebridge-discuss] 6-July Meeting Notes/Help Correct/Spell/Wikify/Post

[Jacob Appelbaum]

On 07/09/2010 02:59 PM, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> GODDAMNIT will you people* stop calling anything you happen to disagree 
> with "unexcellent"?
> 

No, probably not. It's not a proper word but it directly ties into our
serious love and admiration for dreamy Keanu Reeves. In any case....

> You're passing judgement the other person's motivations when you accuse 
> them of unexcellence, and it's a dick move. How about we grow up and say 
> "hey, I disagree with that" without slyly Poisoning The Well by 
> denouncing them?

I don't mind passing judgment on something that we've had serious
discussions about. I consider this to be a reasonable and as you put it,
it's a "grown up" approach.

We have the binder for a very specific reason and it's on paper for a
related reason.

> 
> And we've recently discussed more warning/notice about upcoming 
> memberships, so people could step up and talk to prospective members 
> they have issues with (instead of surprise-ambushing them and blocking 
> their memberships, and/or then whining "waahhh, I didn't know they were 
> up for membership, I never met them, I don't know if I like them").
> 

Cool. Did you come to a consensus on violating the privacy of every
applicant? On every member?

I'm strongly in opposition to this kind of behavior and I think it's
pretty uncool; it's specifically not mentioned on the form that it will
be published. Nor is it mentioned that by signing up, you're cool with
anyone doing whatever they feel like doing with your application.

I think your suggestion will create a larger barrier for entry when you
put people on the spot in such a manner. It's already intimidating
enough to become a member of Noisebridge, why make it worse?

If you want to change that, I guess you might want to lobby to change
those forms? It seems reasonable to ensure that you have gathered
*informed consent* for those involved?

> I think it's absolutely reasonable for us to publish the names read in 
> the meeting notes. Stop wailing. People who wanted semi-anonymity seem 
> to be allowed to put an alias into the membership binder, and they have. 
> On top of that, anyone can request a list of the membership at any time, 
> so getting all faint and hand-wringy at the idea of publishing meeting 
> notes is absolutely inane.

Without the consent of the people whose names are in the binder, I think
you're forcing something that isn't fair to force on them.

They're not even accepted as members yet, they may still back out later
if they'd like. The list of applications is not the same as the list of
members, and the list of members isn't meant to be easily accessible
public information. We have a list but it's not published in the open
for lots of reasons, privacy, and freedom of association being two big ones.

> 
> There, that's a value judgement for you.
> 
> *inclusive, ironic

Sure. Unsurprisingly, we disagree.

All the best,
Jake