[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise

Henner Zeller h.zeller at acm.org
Sun May 3 05:09:27 UTC 2015


On 2 May 2015 at 22:04, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:

>
>
> On May 2, 2015 7:09:42 PM PDT, Henner Zeller <h.zeller at acm.org> wrote:
> >On 2 May 2015 at 19:02, Olivier Laleu <olivier.laleu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >Unless I missed something, I think the discussion about this last item
> >has
> >not settled yet. Leave it at 11:00 for
> >now until we have come to a conclusion.
> >
>
> I feel the problem here is the lack of a forum for lower case c consensus.


the forum to quickly come to a lower case consensus would be the
#security-wg channel on slack.


> I am also confused on the outcome of this thread. I further feel the lack
> of a forum brings docracy to halt.


the forum _is_ slack.


> Can someone please elaborate on how this is supposed to work?
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >I have not understood Patricks original comment, but I don't think he
> >meant
> >that
> >anybody can create a token.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >Leave that at 11 for now until we have consensus. Also in winter-time,
> >this
> >might
> >be pretty late.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >Check with Patrick and Torrie, I think they were working on some 'is
> >open'
> >indicator somewhere.
> >(also 'open' in your case means 'open with RFID' or something)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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!
> >>
> >
> >(At least it is a neat thing from the hack-perspective.
> >Most peoples schedule is actually not related to sunrise, so it just
> >makes
> >it
> >harder to reason when the space is open.)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Henner, Kevin, Patrick,...let me know when you would like to ssh or
> >> operate Earl manually. I'm really interested seeing it working.
> >>
> >
> >I'll meet with Kevin on Monday evening and chat about implementing a
> >web
> >interface.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20150502/4ca8e701/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list