[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposal take 2
setient at gmail.com
Thu Mar 13 04:14:27 UTC 2014
The reasoning for making it public was as kevin says. Basically more
transparency and it is good for members to know who other members are. As
far as Rubin saying it is a doocratic thing, this is a pretty big impact
and could be hurtful/helpful to many members. This is why we are
discussing it. We would like to make it a policy going forward to to share
this list with a piece of contact info and a name they choose to go by.
It allows one member to contact another member. One could doocratically do
this. They could ask the Secretary, Tom, for this information and publish
it themselves. Possibly in an excellent way and possibly not. If it goes
through consensus, it is more formal and written down as opposed to verbal
tradition that can be done over and over again in the same way. With
doocracy there is no real guarantee that it will be done the same in the
future or whatever.
There are pro's and cons to each side. I hope this explains some of the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
> Unfortunately, I also missed the meeting, so Ron and all please excuse me
> if I missed some part of the reasoning.
> I believe every Non-profit including Noisebridge is strengthened when it
> brings in quality people who can contribute to the organization, especially
> when those people take leadership position. Many people are against
> having their addresses and contact information broadly published and
> indexed by Google, and they are in > % than avg at NB. So a requirement
> that their address and contact information be published would be a
> disincentive to full participation, and may keep good people from being
> part of Noisebridge.
> But there is an middle ground on privacy and openness of membership that
> can be looked at. The state law model represents the wisdom of the usage
> of thousands of nonprofit corporation, and it aims for a middle ground. I
> 'd prefer that membership lists not be Google searchable, but that when a
> consensus member want a list of members for a reason consistent with being
> a consensus member, that they are provided that list.
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rubin, I would suggest reading the meeting notes from the past few weeks.
>> There was some discussion about this specific case. If necessarily, I
>> will do a write up in a bit as to why. Anything can be doocratic but it
>> isn't necessarily the most excellent way of doing things.
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think you are quite understanding it. Yes this can be
>>> doocracitcally done by the secretary but the secretary thought it might be
>>> a nice idea to pass it by the community and reach out to it before doing
>>> so. You know to make sure it was excellent.
>>> Tom, would you mind chiming in here and explaining the reasoning (we did
>>> this at the meeting a bunch but rubin no longer attends them and hasn't in
>>> quite some time).
>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
>>>> Eyes up here buddy...
>>>> rubin at starset.net
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> Ronald Cotoni
>>> Systems Engineer
>> Ronald Cotoni
>> Systems Engineer
> Let's stay in touch. Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss