[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge-discuss Digest, Vol 91, Issue 4
Mohamed Shakir
mo.shakirma at gmail.com
Sun May 17 17:54:46 UTC 2015
is anyone planing to come today before noon? the doors are locked.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 05:00 <
noisebridge-discuss-request at lists.noisebridge.net> wrote:
> Send Noisebridge-discuss mailing list submissions to
> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> noisebridge-discuss-request at lists.noisebridge.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> noisebridge-discuss-owner at lists.noisebridge.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Noisebridge-discuss digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Javascript, Spanish Workshop, Network with Mexico City
> hackerspace (Eric Hulburd)
> 2. Re: SF Linux Fest (Ryan Rix)
> 3. HP Printer (Torrie Fischer)
> 4. Re: HP Printer (Teapot)
> 5. 5mof speakers + Danny O'Brient (Torrie Fischer)
> 6. Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise (Olivier Laleu)
> 7. Re: Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise (Henner Zeller)
> 8. Re: Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise (Henner Zeller)
> 9. Re: Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise (kjs)
> 10. Re: Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise (Henner Zeller)
> 11. Re: 5mof speakers + Danny O'Brient (Josh Juran)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Eric Hulburd <ehulburd at gmail.com>
> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:09:30 -0700
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Javascript, Spanish Workshop, Network with
> Mexico City hackerspace
> Hi,
>
> I'm visiting San Francisco this month and I'm working out of Noisebridge
> (originally from SF).
>
> I've been living in Mexico City and have been doing some workshops at a
> hackerspace down there - Rancho Electrico <http://ranchoelectronico.org/>
> .
>
> It would be rad to create some connections between the spaces. If anyone
> is interested in:
>
> - helping me with the javascript workshops by leading the workshops
> online w/ google hangout, skype or whatever you prefer (there's definitely
> a desire to learn to code, availability of skilled programmers willing to
> spend time teaching is a limitation),
> - want to learn spanish and would be interested in organizing a
> spanish language workshop,
> - are interested in what role internet and tech freedom can play in
> fighting corruption on both sides of the border
>
> contact me.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Eric Hulburd
>
> Oroeco.com <http://www.oroeco.com/>
> Twitter: @oyecalifornia <https://twitter.com/oyecalifornia>
> Ciudad de México
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ryan Rix <ryan at whatthefuck.computer>
> To: Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> Cc: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:28:52 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] SF Linux Fest
> Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net> writes:
> > Hei, noisebridge :3
> >
> > I'm up here at Linux Fest Northwest where I've had my passion for free
> > software reinvigorated and renewed.
> >
> > Its inspired me to bring about something like LFNW or even LibrePlanet
> in SF
> > by starting it at Noisebridge. The problem though is that I've been,
> > unfortunately, completely burnt out of free software over the last few
> years.
> > So I'm a bit out of the loop as to what local activities might already be
> > happening.
> >
> > Anyone got pointers of where I should look for an existing community in
> the
> > bay area outside of Noisebridge?
>
> We're bootstrapping an Emacs Conference in SF right now, would be great
> to pool resources on these two things, given their overlap.
>
> http://emacsconf.github.io/emacsconf2015/
>
> r
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 15:13:25 -0700
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] HP Printer
> I'm reclaiming the HP printer I brought in a long while ago. It has more or
> less been totally supplanted by the nice butt-connected black brother
> printer
> from Rubin.
>
> No sense in keeping two printers around if nobody can figure out how to
> use one
> of them.
>
> Unless there are objections, of course.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Teapot <hi at asmallteapot.com>
> To: "noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net" <
> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 16:25:05 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] HP Printer
> I can't think of any reason we'd need two roughly-equivalent printers in
> the space. Long live the Butt Brother.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 2, 2015, at 15:13, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm reclaiming the HP printer I brought in a long while ago. It has more
> or
> > less been totally supplanted by the nice butt-connected black brother
> printer
> > from Rubin.
> >
> > No sense in keeping two printers around if nobody can figure out how to
> use one
> > of them.
> >
> > Unless there are objections, of course.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 18:30:31 -0700
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] 5mof speakers + Danny O'Brient
> Yo, noisebridge.
>
> I still only have one person written down for this month's 5mof. If you'd
> like
> to give a 5 minute talk about anything, literally anything at all, hit me
> up
> with an email :)
>
> The Infamous Danny O'Brien has agreed to host this one as a clown. Of his
> own
> free will. I'm serious. He's not actually locked up in the basement and
> being
> tortured by watching the oncoming onslaught of totalitarianism brought
> upon us
> all by the state. It'll be fun. He's safe down there, I'm sure. Come, bring
> your friends <3
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com>
> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 02:02:36 +0000
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise
> Hi noisebridge,
>
> Thanks for having discussed the proposal during last Tuesday meetings
> and on NB-discuss. Big thanks to Kevin for having helped me with format
> dates in Golang and having launched some tests.
>
> Proposition:
> 1 --- I did a pull-request to Henner and Kevin to have a user's (non
> fulltime) token working 3 hours after the sunrise. You can check my code
> here:
>
> https://github.com/lol84/rfid-access-control/blob/master/software/earl/user.go
>
> Before
> member - 24h a day
> fullTimeUser - from 7 to 23h59
> user - from 11 to 21h59
>
> After
> member - 24h a day
> fullTimeUser - from sunrise to 23h59
> user - from (sunrise + 3 hours) to 21h59
>
> 2 --- The idea of Patrick to have an interface from where visitors could
> make their own rfid card sounds doocratically cool. Maybe I could give
> help with databases.
>
> Question:
> 1 --- sunrise + 3 hours means a space opened at 9:32 for a user. Is
> there a consensus on it? We still can write sunrise + 4 hours if you
> think it would be unsecured.
>
> 2 --- What about writing on the wiki page "Noisebridge is opened today
> from 9:32 to 22:00", via a javascript function. We can grab the code of
> the NOAA sunrise hour (the same that is given by astrotime) via
> javascript. I can help on it.
>
> Last thoughts:
> For newcomers, to know they can enter noisebridge via an rfid related to
> the sunrise, is, so cool!
> For hackers, to know that the space do not depends from arbitrary
> bi-annual time changes sounds cool too!
>
> Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh or
> operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.
>
> Olivier
> 'o o,
> 'o o,
> 'o o'
> 'o o'
> 'o ..ooo, o'
> o''~ ~'o o'
> o' ,o'^'o- ''o
> o' 'o' 'o- o
> o-o-o-o-o-o ;o o' 'o -o-o-o-o-o-o
> :o, 'o- ,o o' ,o
> 'o, '** ,d' ,o
> 'o,..,,d' ,o'
> o' ,o' o
> o' 'o
> o' 'o
> o' 'o
> o' 'o
>
>
>
>
>
>
> kjs:
> > jarrod hicks:
> >> I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one perk -
> >> Block rights for concensus.' a lie."
> >>
> >> I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two perks now.
> >> 1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I already say
> >> essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with there
> >> being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to own this,
> > but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving tours,
> > iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling entirely in
> > the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires consensus
> > of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed 'responsibleness' and
> > trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the day. I am
> > vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I prefer
> > to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.
> >
> >>
> >> I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the progress we
> >> are making improving the space, to open up special access for users
> >> who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a greater
> >> part of our community, they are already welcome during regular hours.
> >> (Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in the
> >> space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a strong
> >> track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of the
> >> space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even if they
> >> are not.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number of
> > early birds expressing interest in being a part of our community,
> > wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation for this
> > proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door to
> > support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension. In the
> > current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage, where
> > only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I proposed both
> > removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface and
> > bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or going out
> > of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that we can
> > find a middle way where all are content.
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> >>> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of people
> who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more critical
> systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has issued a key
> to folks on the 86'ed list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <
> tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
> >>>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
> >>>> Noisebridge?
> >>>>
> >>>> I do. Vehemently.
> >>>>
> >>>> The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey, Sid, Rob
> >>>> 2.0, and
> >>>> other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with giving
> >>>> identified
> >>>> people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement that the
> >>>> information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as the state
> >>>> of
> >>>> California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to identify as. My
> >>>> entries
> >>>> in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net". You'd be
> hard
> >>>> pressed
> >>>> to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my "legal" name.
> >>>>
> >>>> I honestly don't care what name people give when they deanonymize
> >>>> themselves
> >>>> in the database. I only care that people can be held accountable for
> >>>> shitting
> >>>> in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting in the
> >>>> woodshop
> >>>> is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes in and
> >>>> shits in
> >>>> the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope that they
> >>>> don't
> >>>> shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would know who
> did
> >>>> it and
> >>>> tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the woodshop.
> >>>> Don't let
> >>>> her back in."?
> >>>>
> >>>> Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a technical
> >>>> implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically validate
> >>>> someone's
> >>>> Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters, it
> >>>> completely
> >>>> misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need to be a
> >>>> member to
> >>>> have 24/7 access to the door.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it. I'm pretty
> >>>> much a
> >>>> hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to know
> >>>> someone and
> >>>> feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having 24/7
> >>>> access.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org>
> To: Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com>
> Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 19:09:42 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise
> On 2 May 2015 at 19:02, Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi noisebridge,
>>
>> Thanks for having discussed the proposal during last Tuesday meetings
>> and on NB-discuss. Big thanks to Kevin for having helped me with format
>> dates in Golang and having launched some tests.
>>
>> Proposition:
>> 1 --- I did a pull-request to Henner and Kevin to have a user's (non
>> fulltime) token working 3 hours after the sunrise. You can check my code
>> here:
>>
>> https://github.com/lol84/rfid-access-control/blob/master/software/earl/user.go
>>
>> Before
>> member - 24h a day
>> fullTimeUser - from 7 to 23h59
>> user - from 11 to 21h59
>>
>> After
>> member - 24h a day
>> fullTimeUser - from sunrise to 23h59
>> user - from (sunrise + 3 hours) to 21h59
>>
>
> Unless I missed something, I think the discussion about this last item has
> not settled yet. Leave it at 11:00 for
> now until we have come to a conclusion.
>
>
>>
>> 2 --- The idea of Patrick to have an interface from where visitors could
>> make their own rfid card sounds doocratically cool. Maybe I could give
>> help with databases.
>>
>
> I have not understood Patricks original comment, but I don't think he
> meant that
> anybody can create a token.
>
>
>>
>> Question:
>> 1 --- sunrise + 3 hours means a space opened at 9:32 for a user. Is
>> there a consensus on it? We still can write sunrise + 4 hours if you
>> think it would be unsecured.
>>
>
> Leave that at 11 for now until we have consensus. Also in winter-time,
> this might
> be pretty late.
>
>
>>
>> 2 --- What about writing on the wiki page "Noisebridge is opened today
>> from 9:32 to 22:00", via a javascript function. We can grab the code of
>> the NOAA sunrise hour (the same that is given by astrotime) via
>> javascript. I can help on it.
>
>
> Check with Patrick and Torrie, I think they were working on some 'is open'
> indicator somewhere.
> (also 'open' in your case means 'open with RFID' or something)
>
>
>>
>> Last thoughts:
>> For newcomers, to know they can enter noisebridge via an rfid related to
>> the sunrise, is, so cool!
>> For hackers, to know that the space do not depends from arbitrary
>> bi-annual time changes sounds cool too!
>>
>
> (At least it is a neat thing from the hack-perspective.
> Most peoples schedule is actually not related to sunrise, so it just makes
> it
> harder to reason when the space is open.)
>
>
>>
>> Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh or
>> operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.
>>
>
> I'll meet with Kevin on Monday evening and chat about implementing a web
> interface.
>
>
>>
>> Olivier
>> 'o o,
>> 'o o,
>> 'o o'
>> 'o o'
>> 'o ..ooo, o'
>> o''~ ~'o o'
>> o' ,o'^'o- ''o
>> o' 'o' 'o- o
>> o-o-o-o-o-o ;o o' 'o -o-o-o-o-o-o
>> :o, 'o- ,o o' ,o
>> 'o, '** ,d' ,o
>> 'o,..,,d' ,o'
>> o' ,o' o
>> o' 'o
>> o' 'o
>> o' 'o
>> o' 'o
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> kjs:
>> > jarrod hicks:
>> >> I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one perk -
>> >> Block rights for concensus.' a lie."
>> >>
>> >> I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two perks now.
>> >> 1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I already say
>> >> essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with there
>> >> being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.
>> >
>> > Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to own this,
>> > but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving tours,
>> > iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling entirely in
>> > the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires consensus
>> > of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed 'responsibleness' and
>> > trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the day. I am
>> > vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I prefer
>> > to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the progress we
>> >> are making improving the space, to open up special access for users
>> >> who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a greater
>> >> part of our community, they are already welcome during regular hours.
>> >> (Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in the
>> >> space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a strong
>> >> track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of the
>> >> space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even if they
>> >> are not.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number of
>> > early birds expressing interest in being a part of our community,
>> > wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation for this
>> > proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door to
>> > support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension. In the
>> > current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage, where
>> > only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I proposed both
>> > removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface and
>> > bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or going out
>> > of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that we can
>> > find a middle way where all are content.
>> >
>> > -Kevin
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> >>> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of people
>> who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more critical
>> systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has issued a key
>> to folks on the 86'ed list.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <
>> tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
>> >>>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
>> >>>> Noisebridge?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I do. Vehemently.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey, Sid, Rob
>> >>>> 2.0, and
>> >>>> other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with giving
>> >>>> identified
>> >>>> people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement that the
>> >>>> information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as the
>> state
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to identify as.
>> My
>> >>>> entries
>> >>>> in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net". You'd be
>> hard
>> >>>> pressed
>> >>>> to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my "legal"
>> name.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I honestly don't care what name people give when they deanonymize
>> >>>> themselves
>> >>>> in the database. I only care that people can be held accountable for
>> >>>> shitting
>> >>>> in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting in the
>> >>>> woodshop
>> >>>> is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes in and
>> >>>> shits in
>> >>>> the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope that they
>> >>>> don't
>> >>>> shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would know who
>> did
>> >>>> it and
>> >>>> tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the woodshop.
>> >>>> Don't let
>> >>>> her back in."?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a technical
>> >>>> implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically validate
>> >>>> someone's
>> >>>> Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters, it
>> >>>> completely
>> >>>> misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need to be a
>> >>>> member to
>> >>>> have 24/7 access to the door.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it. I'm
>> pretty
>> >>>> much a
>> >>>> hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to know
>> >>>> someone and
>> >>>> feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having 24/7
>> >>>> access.
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org>
> To: kjs <bfb at riseup.net>, NoiseBridge Discuss <
> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 22:09:27 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise
> On 2 May 2015 at 22:04, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2015 7:09:42 PM PDT, Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org> wrote:
>> >On 2 May 2015 at 19:02, Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi noisebridge,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for having discussed the proposal during last Tuesday meetings
>> >> and on NB-discuss. Big thanks to Kevin for having helped me with
>> >format
>> >> dates in Golang and having launched some tests.
>> >>
>> >> Proposition:
>> >> 1 --- I did a pull-request to Henner and Kevin to have a user's (non
>> >> fulltime) token working 3 hours after the sunrise. You can check my
>> >code
>> >> here:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> https://github.com/lol84/rfid-access-control/blob/master/software/earl/user.go
>> >>
>> >> Before
>> >> member - 24h a day
>> >> fullTimeUser - from 7 to 23h59
>> >> user - from 11 to 21h59
>> >>
>> >> After
>> >> member - 24h a day
>> >> fullTimeUser - from sunrise to 23h59
>> >> user - from (sunrise + 3 hours) to 21h59
>> >>
>> >
>> >Unless I missed something, I think the discussion about this last item
>> >has
>> >not settled yet. Leave it at 11:00 for
>> >now until we have come to a conclusion.
>> >
>>
>> I feel the problem here is the lack of a forum for lower case c consensus.
>
>
> the forum to quickly come to a lower case consensus would be the
> #security-wg channel on slack.
>
>
>> I am also confused on the outcome of this thread. I further feel the lack
>> of a forum brings docracy to halt.
>
>
> the forum _is_ slack.
>
>
>> Can someone please elaborate on how this is supposed to work?
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 2 --- The idea of Patrick to have an interface from where visitors
>> >could
>> >> make their own rfid card sounds doocratically cool. Maybe I could
>> >give
>> >> help with databases.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I have not understood Patricks original comment, but I don't think he
>> >meant
>> >that
>> >anybody can create a token.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Question:
>> >> 1 --- sunrise + 3 hours means a space opened at 9:32 for a user. Is
>> >> there a consensus on it? We still can write sunrise + 4 hours if you
>> >> think it would be unsecured.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Leave that at 11 for now until we have consensus. Also in winter-time,
>> >this
>> >might
>> >be pretty late.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 2 --- What about writing on the wiki page "Noisebridge is opened
>> >today
>> >> from 9:32 to 22:00", via a javascript function. We can grab the code
>> >of
>> >> the NOAA sunrise hour (the same that is given by astrotime) via
>> >> javascript. I can help on it.
>> >
>> >
>> >Check with Patrick and Torrie, I think they were working on some 'is
>> >open'
>> >indicator somewhere.
>> >(also 'open' in your case means 'open with RFID' or something)
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Last thoughts:
>> >> For newcomers, to know they can enter noisebridge via an rfid related
>> >to
>> >> the sunrise, is, so cool!
>> >> For hackers, to know that the space do not depends from arbitrary
>> >> bi-annual time changes sounds cool too!
>> >>
>> >
>> >(At least it is a neat thing from the hack-perspective.
>> >Most peoples schedule is actually not related to sunrise, so it just
>> >makes
>> >it
>> >harder to reason when the space is open.)
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh or
>> >> operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'll meet with Kevin on Monday evening and chat about implementing a
>> >web
>> >interface.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Olivier
>> >> 'o o,
>> >> 'o o,
>> >> 'o o'
>> >> 'o o'
>> >> 'o ..ooo, o'
>> >> o''~ ~'o o'
>> >> o' ,o'^'o- ''o
>> >> o' 'o' 'o- o
>> >> o-o-o-o-o-o ;o o' 'o -o-o-o-o-o-o
>> >> :o, 'o- ,o o' ,o
>> >> 'o, '** ,d' ,o
>> >> 'o,..,,d' ,o'
>> >> o' ,o' o
>> >> o' 'o
>> >> o' 'o
>> >> o' 'o
>> >> o' 'o
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> kjs:
>> >> > jarrod hicks:
>> >> >> I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one
>> >perk -
>> >> >> Block rights for concensus.' a lie."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two perks
>> >now.
>> >> >> 1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I already
>> >say
>> >> >> essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with
>> >there
>> >> >> being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to own
>> >this,
>> >> > but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving tours,
>> >> > iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling
>> >entirely in
>> >> > the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires
>> >consensus
>> >> > of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed
>> >'responsibleness' and
>> >> > trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the day. I
>> >am
>> >> > vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I
>> >prefer
>> >> > to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the progress
>> >we
>> >> >> are making improving the space, to open up special access for
>> >users
>> >> >> who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a
>> >greater
>> >> >> part of our community, they are already welcome during regular
>> >hours.
>> >> >> (Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in
>> >the
>> >> >> space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a
>> >strong
>> >> >> track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of the
>> >> >> space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even if
>> >they
>> >> >> are not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number of
>> >> > early birds expressing interest in being a part of our community,
>> >> > wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation for
>> >this
>> >> > proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door to
>> >> > support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension. In
>> >the
>> >> > current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage,
>> >where
>> >> > only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I proposed
>> >both
>> >> > removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface and
>> >> > bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or
>> >going out
>> >> > of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that we
>> >can
>> >> > find a middle way where all are content.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Kevin
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> >> >>> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of
>> >people
>> >> who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more
>> >critical
>> >> systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has issued
>> >a key
>> >> to folks on the 86'ed list.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <
>> >> tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
>> >> >>>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
>> >> >>>> Noisebridge?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I do. Vehemently.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey, Sid,
>> >Rob
>> >> >>>> 2.0, and
>> >> >>>> other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with
>> >giving
>> >> >>>> identified
>> >> >>>> people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement that
>> >the
>> >> >>>> information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as the
>> >state
>> >> >>>> of
>> >> >>>> California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to identify
>> >as. My
>> >> >>>> entries
>> >> >>>> in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net". You'd
>> >be
>> >> hard
>> >> >>>> pressed
>> >> >>>> to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my "legal"
>> >name.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I honestly don't care what name people give when they
>> >deanonymize
>> >> >>>> themselves
>> >> >>>> in the database. I only care that people can be held accountable
>> >for
>> >> >>>> shitting
>> >> >>>> in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting in
>> >the
>> >> >>>> woodshop
>> >> >>>> is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes in
>> >and
>> >> >>>> shits in
>> >> >>>> the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope that
>> >they
>> >> >>>> don't
>> >> >>>> shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would know
>> >who
>> >> did
>> >> >>>> it and
>> >> >>>> tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the
>> >woodshop.
>> >> >>>> Don't let
>> >> >>>> her back in."?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a
>> >technical
>> >> >>>> implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically
>> >validate
>> >> >>>> someone's
>> >> >>>> Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters, it
>> >> >>>> completely
>> >> >>>> misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need to
>> >be a
>> >> >>>> member to
>> >> >>>> have 24/7 access to the door.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it. I'm
>> >pretty
>> >> >>>> much a
>> >> >>>> hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to
>> >know
>> >> >>>> someone and
>> >> >>>> feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having
>> >24/7
>> >> >>>> access.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: kjs <bfb at riseup.net>
> To: Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org>, NoiseBridge Discuss <
> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 23:39:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise
>
>
> On May 2, 2015 10:09:27 PM PDT, Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org> wrote:
> >On 2 May 2015 at 22:04, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 2, 2015 7:09:42 PM PDT, Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org>
> >wrote:
> >> >On 2 May 2015 at 19:02, Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi noisebridge,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for having discussed the proposal during last Tuesday
> >meetings
> >> >> and on NB-discuss. Big thanks to Kevin for having helped me with
> >> >format
> >> >> dates in Golang and having launched some tests.
> >> >>
> >> >> Proposition:
> >> >> 1 --- I did a pull-request to Henner and Kevin to have a user's
> >(non
> >> >> fulltime) token working 3 hours after the sunrise. You can check
> >my
> >> >code
> >> >> here:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> https://github.com/lol84/rfid-access-control/blob/master/software/earl/user.go
> >> >>
> >> >> Before
> >> >> member - 24h a day
> >> >> fullTimeUser - from 7 to 23h59
> >> >> user - from 11 to 21h59
> >> >>
> >> >> After
> >> >> member - 24h a day
> >> >> fullTimeUser - from sunrise to 23h59
> >> >> user - from (sunrise + 3 hours) to 21h59
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Unless I missed something, I think the discussion about this last
> >item
> >> >has
> >> >not settled yet. Leave it at 11:00 for
> >> >now until we have come to a conclusion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I feel the problem here is the lack of a forum for lower case c
> >consensus.
> >
> >
> >the forum to quickly come to a lower case consensus would be the
> >#security-wg channel on slack.
> >
> >
> >> I am also confused on the outcome of this thread. I further feel the
> >lack
> >> of a forum brings docracy to halt.
> >
> >
> >the forum _is_ slack.
> >
>
> Slack is a walled garden with an echo chamber effect. The self reinforcing
> nature of the beast is very conducive to clique consenses. Everyone is not
> on Slack, for good reason. Accounts are limited, access is guarded, we do
> not host the server, thus do not have control of the data transmitted. Of
> course, Slack users' accounts were also once compromised.
>
> The alternatives are Tuesday meetings, a working group meeting and
> discuss. This proposal was discussed at three meetings. My impression from
> the meetings was largely positive. I was surprised by the many concerns
> raised on this thread. Thank you all for the feedback.
>
> I suggest we convene the security working group, perhaps Monday night, and
> empower the group to sort through the concerns raised and move forward with
> some implementation.
>
> >
> >> Can someone please elaborate on how this is supposed to work?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 2 --- The idea of Patrick to have an interface from where visitors
> >> >could
> >> >> make their own rfid card sounds doocratically cool. Maybe I could
> >> >give
> >> >> help with databases.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I have not understood Patricks original comment, but I don't think
> >he
> >> >meant
> >> >that
> >> >anybody can create a token.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Question:
> >> >> 1 --- sunrise + 3 hours means a space opened at 9:32 for a user.
> >Is
> >> >> there a consensus on it? We still can write sunrise + 4 hours if
> >you
> >> >> think it would be unsecured.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Leave that at 11 for now until we have consensus. Also in
> >winter-time,
> >> >this
> >> >might
> >> >be pretty late.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 2 --- What about writing on the wiki page "Noisebridge is opened
> >> >today
> >> >> from 9:32 to 22:00", via a javascript function. We can grab the
> >code
> >> >of
> >> >> the NOAA sunrise hour (the same that is given by astrotime) via
> >> >> javascript. I can help on it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Check with Patrick and Torrie, I think they were working on some 'is
> >> >open'
> >> >indicator somewhere.
> >> >(also 'open' in your case means 'open with RFID' or something)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Last thoughts:
> >> >> For newcomers, to know they can enter noisebridge via an rfid
> >related
> >> >to
> >> >> the sunrise, is, so cool!
> >> >> For hackers, to know that the space do not depends from arbitrary
> >> >> bi-annual time changes sounds cool too!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >(At least it is a neat thing from the hack-perspective.
> >> >Most peoples schedule is actually not related to sunrise, so it just
> >> >makes
> >> >it
> >> >harder to reason when the space is open.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh
> >or
> >> >> operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'll meet with Kevin on Monday evening and chat about implementing a
> >> >web
> >> >interface.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Olivier
> >> >> 'o o,
> >> >> 'o o,
> >> >> 'o o'
> >> >> 'o o'
> >> >> 'o ..ooo, o'
> >> >> o''~ ~'o o'
> >> >> o' ,o'^'o- ''o
> >> >> o' 'o' 'o- o
> >> >> o-o-o-o-o-o ;o o' 'o -o-o-o-o-o-o
> >> >> :o, 'o- ,o o' ,o
> >> >> 'o, '** ,d' ,o
> >> >> 'o,..,,d' ,o'
> >> >> o' ,o' o
> >> >> o' 'o
> >> >> o' 'o
> >> >> o' 'o
> >> >> o' 'o
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> kjs:
> >> >> > jarrod hicks:
> >> >> >> I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one
> >> >perk -
> >> >> >> Block rights for concensus.' a lie."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two
> >perks
> >> >now.
> >> >> >> 1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I
> >already
> >> >say
> >> >> >> essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with
> >> >there
> >> >> >> being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to
> >own
> >> >this,
> >> >> > but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving
> >tours,
> >> >> > iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling
> >> >entirely in
> >> >> > the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires
> >> >consensus
> >> >> > of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed
> >> >'responsibleness' and
> >> >> > trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the
> >day. I
> >> >am
> >> >> > vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I
> >> >prefer
> >> >> > to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the
> >progress
> >> >we
> >> >> >> are making improving the space, to open up special access for
> >> >users
> >> >> >> who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a
> >> >greater
> >> >> >> part of our community, they are already welcome during regular
> >> >hours.
> >> >> >> (Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in
> >> >the
> >> >> >> space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a
> >> >strong
> >> >> >> track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of
> >the
> >> >> >> space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even
> >if
> >> >they
> >> >> >> are not.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number
> >of
> >> >> > early birds expressing interest in being a part of our
> >community,
> >> >> > wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation
> >for
> >> >this
> >> >> > proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door
> >to
> >> >> > support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension.
> >In
> >> >the
> >> >> > current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage,
> >> >where
> >> >> > only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I
> >proposed
> >> >both
> >> >> > removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface
> >and
> >> >> > bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or
> >> >going out
> >> >> > of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that
> >we
> >> >can
> >> >> > find a middle way where all are content.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Kevin
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of
> >> >people
> >> >> who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more
> >> >critical
> >> >> systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has
> >issued
> >> >a key
> >> >> to folks on the 86'ed list.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <
> >> >> tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
> >> >> >>>> Noisebridge?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I do. Vehemently.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey,
> >Sid,
> >> >Rob
> >> >> >>>> 2.0, and
> >> >> >>>> other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with
> >> >giving
> >> >> >>>> identified
> >> >> >>>> people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement
> >that
> >> >the
> >> >> >>>> information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as
> >the
> >> >state
> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >>>> California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to
> >identify
> >> >as. My
> >> >> >>>> entries
> >> >> >>>> in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net".
> >You'd
> >> >be
> >> >> hard
> >> >> >>>> pressed
> >> >> >>>> to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my
> >"legal"
> >> >name.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I honestly don't care what name people give when they
> >> >deanonymize
> >> >> >>>> themselves
> >> >> >>>> in the database. I only care that people can be held
> >accountable
> >> >for
> >> >> >>>> shitting
> >> >> >>>> in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting
> >in
> >> >the
> >> >> >>>> woodshop
> >> >> >>>> is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes
> >in
> >> >and
> >> >> >>>> shits in
> >> >> >>>> the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope
> >that
> >> >they
> >> >> >>>> don't
> >> >> >>>> shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would
> >know
> >> >who
> >> >> did
> >> >> >>>> it and
> >> >> >>>> tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the
> >> >woodshop.
> >> >> >>>> Don't let
> >> >> >>>> her back in."?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a
> >> >technical
> >> >> >>>> implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically
> >> >validate
> >> >> >>>> someone's
> >> >> >>>> Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters,
> >it
> >> >> >>>> completely
> >> >> >>>> misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need
> >to
> >> >be a
> >> >> >>>> member to
> >> >> >>>> have 24/7 access to the door.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it.
> >I'm
> >> >pretty
> >> >> >>>> much a
> >> >> >>>> hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to
> >> >know
> >> >> >>>> someone and
> >> >> >>>> feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having
> >> >24/7
> >> >> >>>> access.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org>
> To: kjs <bfb at riseup.net>
> Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 23:51:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise
> On 2 May 2015 at 23:39, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2015 10:09:27 PM PDT, Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org> wrote:
>> >On 2 May 2015 at 22:04, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On May 2, 2015 7:09:42 PM PDT, Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >On 2 May 2015 at 19:02, Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi noisebridge,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for having discussed the proposal during last Tuesday
>> >meetings
>> >> >> and on NB-discuss. Big thanks to Kevin for having helped me with
>> >> >format
>> >> >> dates in Golang and having launched some tests.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Proposition:
>> >> >> 1 --- I did a pull-request to Henner and Kevin to have a user's
>> >(non
>> >> >> fulltime) token working 3 hours after the sunrise. You can check
>> >my
>> >> >code
>> >> >> here:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> https://github.com/lol84/rfid-access-control/blob/master/software/earl/user.go
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Before
>> >> >> member - 24h a day
>> >> >> fullTimeUser - from 7 to 23h59
>> >> >> user - from 11 to 21h59
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After
>> >> >> member - 24h a day
>> >> >> fullTimeUser - from sunrise to 23h59
>> >> >> user - from (sunrise + 3 hours) to 21h59
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Unless I missed something, I think the discussion about this last
>> >item
>> >> >has
>> >> >not settled yet. Leave it at 11:00 for
>> >> >now until we have come to a conclusion.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I feel the problem here is the lack of a forum for lower case c
>> >consensus.
>> >
>> >
>> >the forum to quickly come to a lower case consensus would be the
>> >#security-wg channel on slack.
>> >
>> >
>> >> I am also confused on the outcome of this thread. I further feel the
>> >lack
>> >> of a forum brings docracy to halt.
>> >
>> >
>> >the forum _is_ slack.
>> >
>>
>> Slack is a walled garden with an echo chamber effect. The self
>> reinforcing nature of the beast is very conducive to clique consenses.
>> Everyone is not on Slack, for good reason. Accounts are limited, access is
>> guarded, we do not host the server, thus do not have control of the data
>> transmitted. Of course, Slack users' accounts were also once compromised.
>>
>
> I agree, slack has its problems, mostly due to its non-open nature.
> However, I would't say it is an echo chamber, just a way to quickly get
> consensus because it is essentially chat.
>
>
>>
>> The alternatives are Tuesday meetings, a working group meeting and
>> discuss. This proposal was discussed at three meetings. My impression from
>> the meetings was largely positive. I was surprised by the many concerns
>> raised on this thread. Thank you all for the feedback.
>>
>
> I have not been in the meetings, and the transcripts don't seem to convey
> the details.
> The proposal to open the fulltimeuserness is without trouble from people
> on this thread.
> But opening the gates for random people early in the morning has obviously
> its problems and the discussion is not settled (and I can't imagine that it
> was settled in the meeting).
>
>
>>
>> I suggest we convene the security working group, perhaps Monday night,
>> and empower the group to sort through the concerns raised and move forward
>> with some implementation.
>>
>
> Sounds good.
>
> -h
>
>
>> >
>> >> Can someone please elaborate on how this is supposed to work?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2 --- The idea of Patrick to have an interface from where visitors
>> >> >could
>> >> >> make their own rfid card sounds doocratically cool. Maybe I could
>> >> >give
>> >> >> help with databases.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I have not understood Patricks original comment, but I don't think
>> >he
>> >> >meant
>> >> >that
>> >> >anybody can create a token.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Question:
>> >> >> 1 --- sunrise + 3 hours means a space opened at 9:32 for a user.
>> >Is
>> >> >> there a consensus on it? We still can write sunrise + 4 hours if
>> >you
>> >> >> think it would be unsecured.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Leave that at 11 for now until we have consensus. Also in
>> >winter-time,
>> >> >this
>> >> >might
>> >> >be pretty late.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2 --- What about writing on the wiki page "Noisebridge is opened
>> >> >today
>> >> >> from 9:32 to 22:00", via a javascript function. We can grab the
>> >code
>> >> >of
>> >> >> the NOAA sunrise hour (the same that is given by astrotime) via
>> >> >> javascript. I can help on it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Check with Patrick and Torrie, I think they were working on some 'is
>> >> >open'
>> >> >indicator somewhere.
>> >> >(also 'open' in your case means 'open with RFID' or something)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Last thoughts:
>> >> >> For newcomers, to know they can enter noisebridge via an rfid
>> >related
>> >> >to
>> >> >> the sunrise, is, so cool!
>> >> >> For hackers, to know that the space do not depends from arbitrary
>> >> >> bi-annual time changes sounds cool too!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >(At least it is a neat thing from the hack-perspective.
>> >> >Most peoples schedule is actually not related to sunrise, so it just
>> >> >makes
>> >> >it
>> >> >harder to reason when the space is open.)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh
>> >or
>> >> >> operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll meet with Kevin on Monday evening and chat about implementing a
>> >> >web
>> >> >interface.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Olivier
>> >> >> 'o o,
>> >> >> 'o o,
>> >> >> 'o o'
>> >> >> 'o o'
>> >> >> 'o ..ooo, o'
>> >> >> o''~ ~'o o'
>> >> >> o' ,o'^'o- ''o
>> >> >> o' 'o' 'o- o
>> >> >> o-o-o-o-o-o ;o o' 'o -o-o-o-o-o-o
>> >> >> :o, 'o- ,o o' ,o
>> >> >> 'o, '** ,d' ,o
>> >> >> 'o,..,,d' ,o'
>> >> >> o' ,o' o
>> >> >> o' 'o
>> >> >> o' 'o
>> >> >> o' 'o
>> >> >> o' 'o
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> kjs:
>> >> >> > jarrod hicks:
>> >> >> >> I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one
>> >> >perk -
>> >> >> >> Block rights for concensus.' a lie."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two
>> >perks
>> >> >now.
>> >> >> >> 1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I
>> >already
>> >> >say
>> >> >> >> essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with
>> >> >there
>> >> >> >> being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to
>> >own
>> >> >this,
>> >> >> > but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving
>> >tours,
>> >> >> > iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling
>> >> >entirely in
>> >> >> > the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires
>> >> >consensus
>> >> >> > of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed
>> >> >'responsibleness' and
>> >> >> > trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the
>> >day. I
>> >> >am
>> >> >> > vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I
>> >> >prefer
>> >> >> > to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the
>> >progress
>> >> >we
>> >> >> >> are making improving the space, to open up special access for
>> >> >users
>> >> >> >> who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a
>> >> >greater
>> >> >> >> part of our community, they are already welcome during regular
>> >> >hours.
>> >> >> >> (Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a
>> >> >strong
>> >> >> >> track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of
>> >the
>> >> >> >> space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even
>> >if
>> >> >they
>> >> >> >> are not.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number
>> >of
>> >> >> > early birds expressing interest in being a part of our
>> >community,
>> >> >> > wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation
>> >for
>> >> >this
>> >> >> > proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door
>> >to
>> >> >> > support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension.
>> >In
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage,
>> >> >where
>> >> >> > only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I
>> >proposed
>> >> >both
>> >> >> > removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface
>> >and
>> >> >> > bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or
>> >> >going out
>> >> >> > of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that
>> >we
>> >> >can
>> >> >> > find a middle way where all are content.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -Kevin
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of
>> >> >people
>> >> >> who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more
>> >> >critical
>> >> >> systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has
>> >issued
>> >> >a key
>> >> >> to folks on the 86'ed list.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <
>> >> >> tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
>> >> >> >>>> Noisebridge?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I do. Vehemently.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey,
>> >Sid,
>> >> >Rob
>> >> >> >>>> 2.0, and
>> >> >> >>>> other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with
>> >> >giving
>> >> >> >>>> identified
>> >> >> >>>> people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement
>> >that
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >>>> information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as
>> >the
>> >> >state
>> >> >> >>>> of
>> >> >> >>>> California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to
>> >identify
>> >> >as. My
>> >> >> >>>> entries
>> >> >> >>>> in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net".
>> >You'd
>> >> >be
>> >> >> hard
>> >> >> >>>> pressed
>> >> >> >>>> to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my
>> >"legal"
>> >> >name.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I honestly don't care what name people give when they
>> >> >deanonymize
>> >> >> >>>> themselves
>> >> >> >>>> in the database. I only care that people can be held
>> >accountable
>> >> >for
>> >> >> >>>> shitting
>> >> >> >>>> in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting
>> >in
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >>>> woodshop
>> >> >> >>>> is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes
>> >in
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >>>> shits in
>> >> >> >>>> the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope
>> >that
>> >> >they
>> >> >> >>>> don't
>> >> >> >>>> shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would
>> >know
>> >> >who
>> >> >> did
>> >> >> >>>> it and
>> >> >> >>>> tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the
>> >> >woodshop.
>> >> >> >>>> Don't let
>> >> >> >>>> her back in."?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a
>> >> >technical
>> >> >> >>>> implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically
>> >> >validate
>> >> >> >>>> someone's
>> >> >> >>>> Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters,
>> >it
>> >> >> >>>> completely
>> >> >> >>>> misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need
>> >to
>> >> >be a
>> >> >> >>>> member to
>> >> >> >>>> have 24/7 access to the door.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it.
>> >I'm
>> >> >pretty
>> >> >> >>>> much a
>> >> >> >>>> hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to
>> >> >know
>> >> >> >>>> someone and
>> >> >> >>>> feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having
>> >> >24/7
>> >> >> >>>> access.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Josh Juran <jjuran at gmail.com>
> To: Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> Cc: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 00:18:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] 5mof speakers + Danny O'Brient
> On May 2, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I still only have one person written down for this month's 5mof. If
> you'd like
> > to give a 5 minute talk about anything, literally anything at all, hit
> me up
> > with an email :)
>
> Where and when is it? Are there limits on how long talks are allowed to
> run? Guidelines on topics? Will there be recording and/or livestreaming
> of talks?
>
> > The Infamous Danny O'Brien has agreed to host this one as a clown. Of
> his own
> > free will. I'm serious.
>
> I suppose an individual is, in an anarchic sense, free to disregard zir
> contractual obligations. In any case, Danny auctioned off this perk at
> 5MoF in February in exchange for a donation to Noisebridge.
>
> Josh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20150517/a25a70ae/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list