[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[bfb at riseup.net]

> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 09:00:59AM -0800, bfb wrote:
>> Coming from some who has been present at the last 4 or so noise bridge
>> weekly
>> meetings.. I opposed making noise bridge a member only space. I was the
>> one
>> of the few who did at the meeting that was consensed.
>
> When I saw that you were at the meeting where the members-only policy was
> decided, I assumed you must have been convinced to stand aside - but
> strangely
> that wasn't indicated in the meeting notes!
>

John and I both stood aside the first time around,when 2300-1000 access
control was consensed. When it became 24 hour law of the land I spent 2
hours airing concerns. Supporters of the proposal addressed my concerns
and we agreed on amendments (eliminate member dues and eliminate the need
for Consensus to become an associate member). I allowed myself to be
involved and committed to the process, because that's how I thought
consensus should work. Of course not all of my concerns were addressed,
but at the time I had no alternative. What I learned is that the status
quo can be an alright alternative. I honestly would prefer to deal with an
abuser of the space once in a while than to enforce shallow rules. I've
heard it said that there's now only a greater false sense of security. I
do belive in the intentions of the proposers. However, we're mistaking
paper work for accountability and trust.

>> As a result I have been around strictly to offer constructive ways off
>> moving
>> forward with a flawed decision to restrict access to noisebridge.
>
> Thank you for continuing to try to make the best of this situation.
>
>> For instance, if only members, associate members, and their guests can
>> be at
>> noisebridge, then we must have a 'on the dirt road' way of verification.
>> We
>> know eachother by digital alias, and that is sufficient.
>
> It's easy to see the argument that having member benefits (like being
> allowed
> in the space) which must be evaluated on-the-fly necessarily requires
> having a
> reliable means for anyone to discern who is and isn't a member.
>
> Systems of control tend to be incompatible with privacy.
>
> I'm somewhat surprised that jake (@spaz) is against this, given that he
> has
> been pushing for the members-only idea for a long time...  but not too
> surprised, as his defenses of it have always hinged on the notion that the
> policy will only be selectively enforced against "bad" people.
>

The notion of creating policies that will be selectively enforced makes no
sense to me.

>> Finally, in practice, and I understand this will change, I often arrive
>> to a
>> noisebridge that does not align with the current rule set. There are
>> many
>> hard and soft copies of key that have been issued to make the current
>> decisions untenable.
>
> I'm also surprised nobody has tried to change the lock yet, to lock out
> the
> thousands (yes, thousands) of hackers around the world who've received
> keys
> over the years. (If that happens, I suggest quickly restoring it!)
>
>> 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... such as:
>
>     Codify the custom which has evolved over the last couple of years that
> says
>     anyone (preferably more than one person) may ask someone to leave and
> not
>     return until a meeting (or some mediation process) has discussed their
>     (mis)use of Noisebridge, and the person being asked to leave should do
> so.
>
> My impression is that one of jake's primary intentions with this policy
> was to
> make it easier to ask "bad" people to leave. I think that has always been
> possible, but I understand some people feel it would be much easier to ask
> people to leave if they had an official policy to refer to when doing so.
> Unfortunately, the policy recently adopted says "No other person shall be
> permitted at Noisebridge" which (obviously to some, but apparently not
> obvious
> to jake) inevitably leads to people enforcing the rule just for the sake
> of the
> rule.
>
> 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.
>

agreed. We did discuss "sanctions" to be placed on members who wilfully do
not enforce this policy to the letter. I'm grateful that it was quickly
shot down..

-Kevin

> ~leif
>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Jake <jake at spaz.org>
>> Date:11/14/2013  10:16 PM  (GMT-08:00)
>> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net,Jacob Appelbaum
>> <jacob at appelbaum.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
>>
>> 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
>>
>