[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[jim]

    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 
patience. 

    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 
situations. 





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