[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jim
jim at well.com
Sat Nov 16 05:40:53 UTC 2013
JS: my replies interspersed below:
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 18:01 -0800, Hannah Grimm wrote:
> Jim: what the fuck?
>
>
> I would like you to pause and think on a few things for a moment.
JS: okay
> First, if I am in a position where I am being harassed, confronting
> my harasser is not always a safe thing for me to do.
JS: right! (and obvious, yes?)
> Throwing a punch might get me stabbed. Hell, telling someone to
> stop catcalling at me might get me stabbed.
JS: true. low likelihood but high damage. Please
note that I did not recommend throwing punches.
> Second, I'd like to point out that while Noisebridge is pretty bad at
> throwing out harassers (see Danny's comments above), it's great about
> kicking out people who have thrown punches. Fighting back is more
> likely to get me kicked out of the space than the person who harassed
> me.
JS: interesting. I don't know the history, but
I'm taking your word for it; it certainly seems
plausible. Good point.
> If you claim that it's my responsibility to be able to defend myself,
> then the only responsible course of action is for me to only go to
> places that are safe...and that functionally means not coming to NB.
JS: no, I did not make such a claim. What I
wrote was that I'll eagerly defend those who
try to defend themselves, and admiringly, too.
I cannot figure out what is your responsibility,
and that goes to formal community rules and
policies: I believe that the community jointly
and severally cannot properly ascertain what
might be one's responsibilities, and I see
merit in keeping the definition at bay.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Frantisek Apfelbeck
> <algoldor at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The members only policy has broken my heart and I've been
> struggling with a sense of frustration ..."
>
> >>> Thank you for the wording, that is exactly how I felt
> about this but it was hard to express it correctly.
>
> >>> I hope that the place will open again to the public in a
> ways of making sure it is again an inviting to both hackers
> and supportive crowd (as someone nicely put it few emails
> back).
>
> >>> I'm going to propose a suggestion to a new threat because
> one thing which I think Jake was/is right is that there were
> not really pronounced alternatives or push to implement them
> and without a special effort things may be too challenging for
> increased number of people who are physically around
> Noisebridge these days, it looks like that there is a need to
> change the atmosphere - not to the old days I think, you do
> not "step in the same river" at Noisebridge but something what
> is closer to the ideas on which or from which Noisebridge
> started to grow and did and hopefully will again flourish.
>
> >>> Sincerely,
>
> >>> FAA
>
> >>> PS It may take me day or so, I want to make a wiki page on
> it to do it right.
>
>
>
> biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker
>
>
>
> http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org
>
>
>
> "There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas
> Karamchand Gandhi
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:19 AM, Darius Garza
> <313kid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I strongly encourage anyone with a sense of WTF to come to a
> meeting and
> > resurrect Leif's proposal to revoke all member only
> consenssies. Two folks
> > two meetings prior did just this but their proposal was
> blocked. Something
> > similar but different could be brought back at some point.
>
>
> >I also strongly encourage people to do this, and to perhaps
> suggest alternate
> >ideas which could achieve some of the well-meaning goals of
> the misguided
> >selectively-enforced-members-only policy...
>
>
> The members only policy has broken my heart and I've been
> struggling with a sense of frustration and hopelessness about
> changing things.
>
>
> I'm not a member, nor an "associate member" but I will be
> present at the next meeting to support Leif's proposal to
> revoke the member's only policy that has stripped us of the
> culture that I once loved.
>
>
> d.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Adrian Chadd
> <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2013 11:43, Leif Ryge
> <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
>
> > If the members of Noisebridge insist on making
> policies I implore them to make
> > policies which are more MAY and SHOULD than MUST and
> SHALL.
>
>
> I've implemented internet protocols like this. It
> turns out people can
> and do ignore MAY/SHOULD when it suits them / when
> they're lazy.
>
> That only works when everyone involved are actively
> working to better
> the community as a whole. It doesn't work if everyone
> is acting in
> (mostly non-enlightened) self-interest. Principles,
> whilst admirable,
> need to be backed up with constant work. I see lots of
> principles..
> then I saw a dirty kitchen, people being abusive at
> meetings and
> people feeling unsafe in the space.
>
> It turns out ideals and principles aren't enough.
>
>
>
>
> -adrian
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list