[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Fri Nov 15 03:58:46 UTC 2013


Yeah, Noisebridge never had anonymous membership. The "Funny Bill"
model is the compromise position it came up with to cope with people
wanting to be members, but not public members. (Said member is not a
member any longer)

I don't see how this changes that policy, although I'm receptive to it
changing the feel of the whole thing and a possible chilling effect
and receptive to possible changes to make it seem less demarcated. Or
any changes, really. Right now, I'm really just standing aside.

I also defer to all of this on the grounds of do-ocracy. I don't think
anyone in the space is listening to anyone on the list unless they're
involved in the space or coming up with other counter-proposal fixes
(I include myself here).

d.


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Josh Juran <jjuran at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Danny O'Brien wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty neutral on this suggestion, and mildly leaning against
>> because (as with all people connected to Noisebridge) I become more
>> conservative about change the further I float away from it, but just
>> to continue the discussion: how does this prevent anonymous
>> membership? The wiki is open to Tor use, doesn't require an email to
>> sign up, and you can use a nym.
>>
>> I guess my criteria for whether this affects things is: could John
>> Walters be a member of Noisebridge still? Could someone who we only
>> know as "Funny Bill"?
>
>
> Or "aestetix"?
>
> If you're using an identifiable nym, then it's pseudonymous, not anonymous.
> I support pseudonymous membership; I don't see how anonymous membership can
> work.
>
> Josh
>
>
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list