[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
leif at synthesize.us
Thu Nov 14 21:14:59 UTC 2013
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:24:03PM -0800, jim wrote:
> I agree. This stuff is wrong and should
> not be supported but opposed. It seems to
> me that we now have a small cabal that is
> trying to address problems by fiat rather
> than ad hoc with sympathy and analysis and
> Ideals should not be implemented as
> policies or rules: ideals are ideal and
> cannot account for all of reality for any
> situation let alone multiple similar
jim, I know you're not a fan of meetings, but I really wish you'd lend your
voice to them occassionally!
Others too: it seems that only a very small number of members have been
attending meetings lately, and they're making some ridiculous decisions.
Noisebridge appears to be getting trolled into becoming an authoritarian parody
of a hackerspace. I urge you all to stop letting this happen.
ps: I haven't attended a meeting myself since July as I'm currently not living
in SF; I sure hope I'll be able to get into Noisebridge without submitting to a
cavity search when I get back!
> On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 19:40 +0000, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> > I was disheartened to see the following:
> > > B. We discussed Tom's proposal to make the list of members public. We
> > > agreed the following:
> > >
> > > "It shall not a secret whether a person is Member of Noisebridge. It shall
> > > be the responsibility of each member to identify themself as a member by
> > > adding the Category:Members to their wiki user page. Until a Member so
> > > identifies, they shall not be entitled to any privilege of Noisebridge
> > > Membership. Likewise, if a member is on Membership/Hiatus, they must
> > > indicate this by adding the Category:Hiatus to their wiki user page; this
> > > method of so identifying shall replace any other notification requirement
> > > for going on and coming off hiatus. Although it shall generally be a
> > > responsibility shared by all members to ensure that this category of
> > > identification is used correctly, in cases where its use is disputed,
> > > Noisebridge's secretary shall be the final arbiter."
> > It has never been a secret that a person is a member of Noisebridge -
> > rather if someone wishes to identify as such, it is their choice. The
> > membership binder and the treasurer are the final arbiter of any
> > statements made by anyone, of course.
> > With that said - the above is rather sad but the following for next week
> > is really sad:
> > > A. "As a result of our prior conversation, we collectively propose: If a
> > > member has not identified themself as such by adding the Category:Members
> > > to their wiki user page by $DATE, they shall no longer be a member of
> > > Noisebridge."
> > I object and request a proxy at the next meeting to block this in the
> > consensus process.
> > Members of Noisebridge have a right to privacy and they should have a
> > right to decide if they disclose their affiliation with Noisebridge.
> > This robs them of that ability in a time when we face massive
> > persecution from both corporate and state actors.
> > Sincerely,
> > Jacob
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss