[Noisebridge-discuss] The image we have to other hackerspaces and society as a whole
rachel at xtreme.com
Sat Oct 5 01:55:48 UTC 2013
Can you define the problem?
There have been many attempts to fix it, and from where I stand they all
seem to be addressing different-but-related issues, and tend to fail
because Solution X doesn't solve Problem Y, and Problem Y's proponents
either refuse to follow along with Solution X, or sometimes actively try
to break it.
I wish you luck, I'd love to feel NB was a place I want to go to again.
On 10/4/13 6:51 PM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
> Sure. Lets fix this in two weeks. This saturday and sunday I am busy
> but who wants to get together every day for the next two weeks or
> however long it takes to sort out, starting monday and get this shit
> sorted out? I am free after work. Lets solve this. Lets talk it out,
> lets figure this crap out once and for all. We are smart people, we can
> do this.
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org
> <mailto:schoen at loyalty.org>> wrote:
> Ronald Cotoni writes:
> > With articles like this we have a massively negative image, as we
> > for not adequately dealing with these issues.
> As I said a while ago, at 83C there was a very strong understanding that
> Noisebridge should not create rules _preemptively_. But at 2169 there
> seems to be an understanding that Noisebridge should never create rules
> _at all_.
> I think the new understanding is severely broken.
> Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org <mailto:schoen at loyalty.org>>
> | No haiku patents
> http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | means I've no incentive to
> FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150 | -- Don Marti
> Ronald Cotoni
> Systems Engineer
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss