[Noisebridge-discuss] better tech for making decisions
pnaomi at gmail.com
Thu Apr 3 16:44:05 UTC 2014
You're right, the "secure" part wasn't mentioned. I added that in.
The reason I thought to add that in was because I felt it was a value
most at Noisebridge would share. But you're right that it doesn't
accurately represent the conversation.
I agree with almost everything else you've written, and I'm the
biggest proponent of people meeting in person in the space whenever
possible. I'm just worried about those times when that's not
Maybe I shouldn't worry so much? Maybe when there are Working Groups,
the meetings will be less burdened, and therefore more productive?
But one thing I do want to try is having more reasoned discussions
ahead of the meetings. Technology helps a lot with that, since I have
no guarantees of when I or anyone else will happen to be in the space
AND want to talk rather than hack.
--Naomi, getting back to hacking!
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Xavier Aubuchon-Mendoza
<xavieram at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was present for this discussion, but don't concur with one aspect of
> Naomi's summation of it:
> So rather than talk about a new voting method, which would entail the
> same above problems, we talked about ways to get greater participation
> before a meeting, where all interested parties could participate in
> the discussion topics that interest them. Such a technology would
> have the following features:
> * Internal to Noisebridge (so, NOT the nb-discuss list).
> * Secure (reasonably protected from surveillance by unwanted parties)
> It was mentioned that we thought people should be free to use whatever
> uniquely identifiable and verifiable as a member identifier that they might
> However, keeping those messages secure from surveillance wasn't something I
> recall being brought up, though I might not have heard it if it was.
> What I do recall, however, was mention of the importance of transparency. If
> there is a NB-members list for the purpose of examining proposals, I think
> it is important that it be viewable by anybody as a matter of record. This
> is particularly important given that not everybody is going to want to sign
> up for the list, but I don't believe they should be deprived access to
> reviewing the consensus process.
> Regarding suggestions to make the core decision-making process resident on
> some website or other electronic medium - I would caution against that. We
> all love technology, but Noisebridge is a community of people based around a
> physical location. There simply is no substitute for working things out in
> person, with the people involved, in the space you are all connected to.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss