[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
ceren at ercen.com
Sat Nov 16 02:15:28 UTC 2013
Jake, I appreciate your efforts to make some sort of working membership
body out of the morass. I'm not there to see it, but I certainly didn't
have the guts to try this when I was in SF.
Just a note: wording matters. wording and tone and what people pick up on a
cursory scan of an emailed paragraph really REALLY matters. If you can pull
in another person who's socially conscious, a professional who deals in
text copy, or someone who knows what particular word-buttons you might push
for less flailing on the part of this crowd, it's worth it. I'd offer, but
I'm not sure how much good I am from out here, and also I don't think your
wording's been that bad.
I suspect you were taking aim at the "fuck you, I can sleep here, I'm a
member, and you can't prove I'm not" assholes with this member
identification push, or something like that?
- Ceren E.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> 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.
> I haven't been to the last few meetings and I think people are going a
> little bit off-track, although i appreciate that they are trying to improve
> the situation at the space.
> My last proposal (which improves the language of the members and their
> guests policy) was made to clarify the intent of the recent changes, but it
> seems that it didn't get talked about since I wasn't there.
> I think it is helpful to improve public awareness of who is a member of
> noisebridge, but I think that obviously if people want to reduce awareness
> of that (by requiring that the treasurer be asked specifically) that should
> be their right.
> Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> With that said - the above is rather sad but the following for next week
> is really sad:
> A. "As a result of our prior conversation, we collectively propose: If a
>> member has not identified themself as such by adding the Category:Members
>> to their wiki user page by $DATE, they shall no longer be a member of
> I object and request a proxy at the next meeting to block this in the
> consensus process.
> Members of Noisebridge have a right to privacy and they should have a
> right to decide if they disclose their affiliation with Noisebridge.
> This robs them of that ability in a time when we face massive
> persecution from both corporate and state actors.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss