[Noisebridge-discuss] FidoNet Policy as community history
asweigart at gmail.com
Mon Mar 31 21:37:20 UTC 2014
Naomi, this is an example of you assuming bad faith on the part of someone
disagreeing with you.
Also, how would the NB membership be grouped off to follow this model?
On Mar 31, 2014 2:21 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, that's a valid criticism.
> Was your point to shut down this entire thread? Because it really
> feels like that.
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com>
> > Hi,
> > Historical stuff is fun, but please keep in mind that the fidonet
> > community although flamey and enraging, had an underlying motivating
> > thing - you could just be disconnected. So there's still a power
> > hierarchy present there.
> > -a
> > On 31 March 2014 13:36, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Submitted for the consideration of Noisebridgers interested in a Better
> Way, the FidoNet workings came to the mind of a coworker when i told him
> about what's happening at NB lately.
> >> http://www.fidonet.org/policy4.txt
> >> (This is a discussion topic, not a proposal.)
> >> Interesting aspects of FidoNet:
> >> * a hierarchical tree structure where regional nodes branch from a
> >> * concerns and complaints are raised at the smallest node level, and
> escalated if they can't be resolved.
> >> There are echoes here of systems proposals for NB that involve working
> >> Just something to ponder.
> >> --Naomi
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> skype: nthmost
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss