[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[Dan Cote]

Why is this important? Is there a good reason why we need to create more
policy? I would argue that we shouldn't create policy without a very good
reason.

>From the meeting notes, it seems there was a push to digitize the
membership roles. Can anyone who was there chime in? Is this why this
language was introduced? If so, we may want to grandfather in anyone who is
in the membership binder, or continue to allow binder membership while
introducing new options for membership.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:

> Yeah, Noisebridge never had anonymous membership. The "Funny Bill"
> model is the compromise position it came up with to cope with people
> wanting to be members, but not public members. (Said member is not a
> member any longer)
>
> I don't see how this changes that policy, although I'm receptive to it
> changing the feel of the whole thing and a possible chilling effect
> and receptive to possible changes to make it seem less demarcated. Or
> any changes, really. Right now, I'm really just standing aside.
>
> I also defer to all of this on the grounds of do-ocracy. I don't think
> anyone in the space is listening to anyone on the list unless they're
> involved in the space or coming up with other counter-proposal fixes
> (I include myself here).
>
> d.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Josh Juran <jjuran at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Danny O'Brien wrote:
> >
> >> I'm pretty neutral on this suggestion, and mildly leaning against
> >> because (as with all people connected to Noisebridge) I become more
> >> conservative about change the further I float away from it, but just
> >> to continue the discussion: how does this prevent anonymous
> >> membership? The wiki is open to Tor use, doesn't require an email to
> >> sign up, and you can use a nym.
> >>
> >> I guess my criteria for whether this affects things is: could John
> >> Walters be a member of Noisebridge still? Could someone who we only
> >> know as "Funny Bill"?
> >
> >
> > Or "aestetix"?
> >
> > If you're using an identifiable nym, then it's pseudonymous, not
> anonymous.
> > I support pseudonymous membership; I don't see how anonymous membership
> can
> > work.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131114/50333bec/attachment.html>