[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

jim jim at systemateka.com
Fri Nov 15 19:13:28 UTC 2013



    Thank you for your directness. I have 
taken time to write directly to your comments. 

    I cannot see how wanting to protect tools, 
mine or yours or those donated to Noisebridge, 
is a bad thing; seems good to me, even 
necessary for us all to use the space well. 
    (We have not discontinued the build-out 
phase, so we should still be following the 
conventions we established until we finish 
the build-out; my guess is that no one has 
given any thought to this; I believe we 
should still be in build-out phase, as 
there are many things that should be done.) 

    Attendance at meetings has explicitly 
been noted as unessential for participation: 
people are different, with different 
schedules and needs, and for some attendance 
is difficult. 
    I'm one; the primary reason for my lack 
of attendance is my need for sleep; 8 PM 
might seem early to most people, but for me 
it's late. 

    Generally, I do not mind transients: some 
I like, and a few I like a lot; they're 
people, after all. 
    Thieves I dislike; drunks and hop-heads I 
dislike a lot. 

    As to harassment issues, transients have 
suffered harassment, and I have tried to defend 
them. Some people have been perceived as 
non-hackers and so harassed; and them, too, 
I've tried to defend. 
    As to females being harassed, for cases of 
crude coppings of feels, I dislike taht female 
turning to the community for support; I would 
eagerly defend any female who hauled off and 
slugged whoever copped a feel or to go get some 
friends and return to verbally educate the 
offender: it's dis-empowering to perceive one's 
self as a victim and turn to a community for 
support for what is an individual incident. 
    There will be no way fully to suppress such 
actions taken by horney and inconsiderate 
personages, policies and rules and committee 
resolutions aside (far, far aside, I hope). 
    There are other forms of female harassment 
that are subtler: I'd like to understand the 
specifics, because I'm much in favor of having 
all kinds of people able to breath the same air 
(including seeming non-hackers, homeless, 
females, those of alternate sexual orientations, 
old, very young, every kind of background...). 

    Please ask yourself if you are prone to 
express yourself when you believe you have the 
"high ground" and can properly scold others. I.e., 
are you living too much with anger? 




On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 13:16 -0500, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> In This Thread:
> 
> 
> a bunch of people who don't attend meetings and don't give a shit
> about (or aren't personally affected by) the problem bitch about
> attempts to address it.  
> 
> 
> (potentially flawed attempted, but uh, ATTEMPTS. you know, the thing
> where you do the work, take the criticism, and go to all the meetings,
> and write out the proposals.)
> 
> 
> None of you even halfway tried to parse that this shouldn't affect
> pseudo-anonymous membership, you just started moaning.
> 
> 
> Jim, you're particularly anti-constructive when you're not personally
> affected. The only time you give half a crap about transients is when
> they steal tools. I think I remember you trying to make a policy about
> a mini room becoming a locked supply closet for only your electrician
> stuff, when you were concerned about it. But dealing with serious
> harassment issues? They don't exist to you, you're just
> mister-sit-in-the-road-and-block.
> 
> 
> Frantisek, you explicitly broke the rules to sneakily live in NB for a
> significant amount of time, and then charmed your way around censure
> and banning. And you've don't feel you've lost any moral high-road you
> are trying to sling around with "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of
> membership and problematic presences in the space? That's ballsy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Ceren, uselessly telling people to shut up from across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Jacob Appelbaum
> <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
>         Jake:
>         > I agree with you that members of noisebridge should not have
>         to identify
>         > themselves online in this way, and I am willing to
>         proxy-block on your
>         > behalf and on my own volition as well.  Although i suspect
>         there will be
>         > plenty of other people to block it without me.
>         
>         
>         Thank you - please do so on my behalf - we should not have a
>         membership
>         purge by shitty policy trick. It is awful enough to
>         effectively remove
>         anonymity from those in the space, it is even worse to force a
>         status
>         symbol or affiliation from people.
>         
>         All the best,
>         Jake
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         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




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list