[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise

Olivier Laleu olivier.laleu at gmail.com
Sun May 3 02:02:36 UTC 2015


Hi noisebridge,

Thanks for having discussed the proposal during last Tuesday meetings
and on NB-discuss. Big thanks to Kevin for having helped me with format
dates in Golang and having launched some tests.

Proposition:
1 --- I did a pull-request to Henner and Kevin to have a user's (non
fulltime) token working 3 hours after the sunrise. You can check my code
here:
https://github.com/lol84/rfid-access-control/blob/master/software/earl/user.go

Before
member - 24h a day
fullTimeUser - from 7 to 23h59
user - from 11 to 21h59

After
member - 24h a day
fullTimeUser - from sunrise to 23h59
user - from (sunrise + 3 hours) to 21h59

2 --- The idea of Patrick to have an interface from where visitors could
make their own rfid card sounds doocratically cool. Maybe I could give
help with databases.

Question:
1 --- sunrise + 3 hours means a space opened at 9:32 for a user. Is
there a consensus on it? We still can write sunrise + 4 hours if you
think it would be unsecured.

2 --- What about writing on the wiki page "Noisebridge is opened today
from 9:32 to 22:00", via a javascript function. We can grab the code of
the NOAA sunrise hour (the same that is given by astrotime) via
javascript. I can help on it.

Last thoughts:
For newcomers, to know they can enter noisebridge via an rfid related to
the sunrise, is, so cool!
For hackers, to know that the space do not depends from arbitrary
bi-annual time changes sounds cool too!

Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh or
operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.

Olivier
     'o                            o,
       'o                        o,
         'o                    o'
           'o                o'
             'o ..ooo,     o'
             o''~    ~'o o'
           o'  ,o'^'o-  ''o
          o' 'o'      'o-  o
o-o-o-o-o-o  ;o   o'    'o -o-o-o-o-o-o
          :o, 'o-  ,o  o' ,o
           'o,  '**  ,d' ,o
             'o,..,,d' ,o'
            o'       ,o' o
          o'              'o
        o'                  'o
      o'                      'o
    o'                          'o






kjs:
> jarrod hicks:
>> I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one perk -
>> Block rights for concensus.' a lie."
>>
>> I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two perks now.
>> 1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I already say
>> essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with there
>> being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.
> 
> Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to own this,
> but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving tours,
> iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling entirely in
> the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires consensus
> of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed 'responsibleness' and
> trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the day. I am
> vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I prefer
> to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.
> 
>>
>> I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the progress we
>> are making improving the space, to open up special access for users
>> who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a greater
>> part of our community, they are already welcome during regular hours.
>> (Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in the
>> space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a strong
>> track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of the
>> space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even if they
>> are not.
>>
>>
> 
> During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number of
> early birds expressing interest in being a part of our community,
> wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation for this
> proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door to
> support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension. In the
> current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage, where
> only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I proposed both
> removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface and
> bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or going out
> of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that we can
> find a middle way where all are content.
> 
> -Kevin
> 
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>>> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of people who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more critical systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has issued a key to folks on the 86'ed list.
>>>
>>>
>>> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
>>>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
>>>> Noisebridge?
>>>>
>>>> I do. Vehemently.
>>>>
>>>> The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey, Sid, Rob
>>>> 2.0, and
>>>> other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with giving
>>>> identified
>>>> people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement that the
>>>> information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as the state
>>>> of
>>>> California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to identify as. My
>>>> entries
>>>> in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net". You'd be hard
>>>> pressed
>>>> to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my "legal" name.
>>>>
>>>> I honestly don't care what name people give when they deanonymize
>>>> themselves
>>>> in the database. I only care that people can be held accountable for
>>>> shitting
>>>> in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting in the
>>>> woodshop
>>>> is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes in and
>>>> shits in
>>>> the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope that they
>>>> don't
>>>> shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would know who did
>>>> it and
>>>> tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the woodshop.
>>>> Don't let
>>>> her back in."?
>>>>
>>>> Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a technical
>>>> implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically validate
>>>> someone's
>>>> Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters, it
>>>> completely
>>>> misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need to be a
>>>> member to
>>>> have 24/7 access to the door.
>>>>
>>>> However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it. I'm pretty
>>>> much a
>>>> hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to know
>>>> someone and
>>>> feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having 24/7
>>>> access.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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