[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[Jake]

I agree with you that members of noisebridge should not have to identify 
themselves online in this way, and I am willing to proxy-block on your 
behalf and on my own volition as well.  Although i suspect there will be 
plenty of other people to block it without me.

I haven't been to the last few meetings and I think people are going a 
little bit off-track, although i appreciate that they are trying to 
improve the situation at the space.

My last proposal (which improves the language of the members and their 
guests policy) was made to clarify the intent of the recent changes, but 
it seems that it didn't get talked about since I wasn't there.

I think it is helpful to improve public awareness of who is a member of 
noisebridge, but I think that obviously if people want to reduce awareness 
of that (by requiring that the treasurer be asked specifically) that 
should be their right.

-jake

Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
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