[Noisebridge-discuss] Potential misuse of the ultimate power, deleting the 85 page
jim at well.com
Wed Mar 7 11:34:06 PST 2012
I just did that, it seems to me: I explained the problem,
suggested a policy, and propagated that idea in the email.
At this point I believe it's for others to consider my
suggestion and agree or disagree or fine-tune or whatever
it takes for the suggestion to get integrated into the
community (or rejected).
As there are people in a policy wonks and soceng group,
I've mentioned them by name with an additional suggestion
that members be mindful of the directions they're taking
with respect to the concerns of others, many of whom don't
know or care about either of the groups or their missions.
(I think "misuse" is different from "disuse" and the
As to the suggestion, what do you think?
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 11:17 -0800, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
> The only thing that gives wonks power to create policy is that they
> have decided to do so. If you have identified a policy you think
> should exist, the power lays within you to create and propogate that
> policy. It is the person who fails to act until others do, that is
> misusing their ultimate power.
> On Mar 7, 2012 11:09 AM, "jim" <jim at well.com> wrote:
> and I'm getting disturbed by some behaviors that seem
> associated with some soceng and policy wonks members (or
> their running dogs).
> I see those groups as a mixed bag: coming together to
> identify and solve problems is good; succumbing to a
> bonding-driven sense of authority and mission leads to
> inconsiderate behavior, mainly overly hasty actions that
> affect others' interests.
> Do-ocracy or consensus? I like policy, and maybe
> policy wonks can think out a policy that puts reins on
> destructive actions (which are necessary and good--
> getting a bunch of crap out of the space is definitely
> good, but....
> The recent jettison of stuff from Turing was too hasty:
> Tom gave notice, kept his word, and moved stuff out the
> very day he said he would. But..., as I heard things,
> robert checked with a few people if it was all junk, got
> assent, and called ewaste, which came and took stuff away
> within a day. The problem? Some of us thought removal to
> ewaste meant there would be some time for us to be able
> to go through it to retrieve what was important to us
> (I think that idea was explicitly mentioned, but I'm too
> lazy to go check).
> It seems to me that two weeks notice is reasonable to
> move stuff, but another two weeks notice seems reasonable
> before eliminating the stuff altogether. A parallel notion
> is the trash that computer systems implement: you throw it
> away on schedule into the trash, where it sits for a while
> so's you can gasp and go back and get it out before it's
> No one person can decide everything for everybody and
> get much right, no matter how long or how much they've
> been in and helping with the space. Getting off on doing
> good things seems to obscure the idea that the community
> has to have time to review, and a month seems like
> reasonable propagation time. Hence my suggestion to policy
> wonks to suggest that destructive actions need a month's
> notice or some such.
> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 01:27 -0800, Rubin Abdi wrote:
> > So multiple times it's been asked if a "shit talking" list
> can be
> > created to corner out colorful discussion that would cast
> > participating within the space in negative light. Each time
> the general
> > murmur has been a strong no, pointing out that other spaces
> have done
> > such a thing and it's ended in more shit talking and general
> > violence. If it's a problem within the space it's a problem
> that's part
> > of the community, if it's a community problem (as much as it
> can get
> > dramatic) it should be openly discussed here, hiding it just
> > more hate and back channel scheming.
> > Currently there's a page on the wiki titled 85 that from my
> > is turning into a general shit talking about others
> discussion board.
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/85
> > I understand it started out as a list for non-excellent
> people, but it's
> > so not that anymore. A wiki really isn't the best of place
> for a
> > discussion like this to occur as it really doesn't allow for
> > else to actively take note in the ugly going-ons in the
> > Additionally folks that are using this page have been
> hitting some
> > pretty nasty edit wars trying to rewrite history to drive a
> point or in
> > defense.
> > Here's a funny example that happened while I was writing
> > Anyhow, as much as I'm that asshole who says he's staying
> pretty hands
> > free here with the space, shit like this is dumb and I would
> like to see
> > it stopped. Discussions about these individuals, as much as
> > annoying, should happen on the discussion list. If a
> generalized list of
> > opinion labeled unfavorables needs to exist, simply write
> the person's
> > name on that page then link to the posts on the mailing list
> > where you discuss why this person is being anything but
> excellent. If
> > people bitch about not wanting to see that crap on the list,
> attach the
> > [Drama] tag to the subject header.
> > And yes I'm more than happy to abuse my wiki admin powers
> > Thanks for reading.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss