[Noisebridge-discuss] Should the NB board take action wrt IRC?

[Jeffrey Malone]

I move that we put aestetix here as our group contact with freenode.

It makes him +F in the channel, and they're who freenode will regard
as the person in charge of the channel.
Thus, it won't be the board, or anyone on the board.  (I'm not being
sarcastic with this suggestion)

Also, I want to quickly point out what Ani said earlier, that seems to
have gone unnoticed:
> In talking with one of the admins however, the point was brought up
> that they couldn't process requests from two different people. A bit
> confused, I inquired further. The name of the person who submitted
> #noisebridge for registration wouldn't be revealed but I did find out
> it happened over 6 months ago. I ended up rescinding my submission
> after learning this.

Someone else has already registered Noisebridge as a group.  They
apparently won't tell us who... but just want to point to this so
people see it.  This wasn't an act that was approved by the
membership, or announced as something someone did on our behalf.
I think it's a good idea for us to figure out who is claiming to speak
for us secretly for over 6 months..

Jeffrey

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:55 AM, aestetix aestetix <aestetix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am against anything which empowers the board at all beyond their minimally
> prestated duties and responsibilities.
>
> I am in favor of any individual who takes action on their own accord to help
> solve issues and promote good community.
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> The board could do this.  Should we?  I won't agree to it unless we have
>> a general membership consensus in favor of it; the most difficult bit, I
>> think, is to decide who the new channel owners should be.  Let's take
>> that in two parts.
>>
>> IF YOU ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT IRC:
>>
>> 1. should the board request this from Freenode?
>>
>> 2. let's wait on *who* until we know if there's consensus on *whether*.
>>
>> If you don't care about IRC, feel free to suppress this thread entirely.
>>
>> Rachel
>>
>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> > On 3/26/10 1:19 PM, Ani Niow wrote:
>> >> It seems like you know a bit more about the processes with Freenode
>> >> than I do, would you have any suggestions beyond what you've said
>> >> already to help secure the channel with owners that actually care
>> >> about it?
>> >
>> > Yes.  The NB board should write an official letter to the Freenode
>> > board, in which they:
>> > a) identify themselves
>> > b) identify 3 individuals to be channel owners
>> > c) explain the current #noisebridge channel situation and Jake's absence
>> > d) request that the #noisebridge channel be assigned to these 3 people
>> > and registered as an official channel
>> >
>> > Given that Freenode is an overworked non-profit, I would also suggest
>> > that we make a small donation (like $40 or $50) towards its maintenance
>> > since we'll be using *their* time.
>> >
>> > Also, note that the matter will probably wait until the next Freenode
>> > monthly board meeting to resolve.  There's been too many issues over
>> > channel hijacking for them to risk rushing a resolution.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>