[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

jim jim at well.com
Fri Nov 15 05:26:39 UTC 2013


    I didn't say "secret". My sense is that 
the people who currently attend meetings 
does not include many people who participate 
in Noisebridge and that the meeting attendees 
are parochial in their sense of who's part 
of Noisebridge. 



On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 20:10 -0800, Casey Callendrello wrote:
> On 11/14/13 12:24 PM, jim wrote:
> > It seems to
> > me that we now have a small cabal that is
> > trying to address problems by fiat rather
> > than ad hoc with sympathy and analysis and
> > patience.
> Jim,
>      Without commenting on anything else you've said, I'd like to object 
> to this particular assertion. All the decisions being made have been 
> month-long consensus items, documented in meeting notes as usual and 
> discussed extensively on the mailing list. If there's a secret cabal, 
> they aren't doing a very good job of hiding themselves.
> 
> I know NB meetings have always been boring slog-fests at the best of 
> times, and I haven't seen a keysigning in quite a while. However, I 
> don't think it's fair to allege fiat.
> 
> Cheers,
> --Casey
> 
> p.s. I went to the space to do some hacking a week ago and the 
> environment was pretty great. Lots of actual hackifying going on. It 
> felt the closest to the NB I remember of 3 years ago. I'm not naïve 
> enough, however, to assume the ends justify the means.
> 




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list