[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
algoldor at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 15 00:07:57 UTC 2013
I agree with Jacob, Jim and Leif,
I wonder if there is any chance of streaming the meeting. I do not want to add to the workload needed to prepare and run the meeting but if people would be OK with that, it would be nice. Otherwise meeting notes ...
I've seen this rule creation drive in spaces before, do not remember any of them resulting in increased levels of social understanding and caring for others. The beauty of "being excellent to each other" is I think in that white page which you fill up with your thinking and feeling about the others and how to treat them, you need to concentrate and develop, rather than reading the list of rules from the number 1 to 333 being than ready to be cool. It doesn't work like that. I remember for example 091 labs in Ireland which I was involved few years ago did not have even voting or any other agreement system in place, which really surprised me. They just got together and talked and sorted the things in a nice way. It was one of the most welcoming places which I've been in to, medium scale membership base I would say.
Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck
biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker
"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
On Friday, November 15, 2013 6:15 AM, Leif Ryge <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
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
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss