On 2013-10-13 22:49, sudo-discuss-request(a)lists.sudoroom.org wrote:
> Lastly, shot-spotters shouldn't be controversial, even among those of us
> who support the personal rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. A
> gunshot on a city street means one of two things: a criminal has just
> shot a victim, or a criminal's would-be victim has just shot their
> attacker in self-defense. Either of those things merits getting the
> police and paramedics on the scene, pronto.
Shotspotters are microphones. They can capture other sounds and it is
not clear how many other sounds and how long those sounds are retained.
Their use would be less controversial if they were an oracle that just
spit out 4 .40 caliber rounds were fired at the intersection of Grand
and Broadway at 23:12:32 (15 seconds ago) instead of capturing any audio
Dear Kopimists and the People who Love Them.
For the featured Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have potato burekas.
I propose we talk about the difference between source code, object code, and executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other words, when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject to less legal protection?
Below is an excerpt from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney for more than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two paragraphs are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous" software.
Of course, as always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as conscience and the unconscionable, perhaps.
Lee Tien, Publishing Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech. Law Journal (2000)
> Let’s return to the virus hypothetical.192 The main concern lies in the fact that the software may be “diverted” toward unlawful purposes, regardless of the speaker’s intent. This concern is, however, not unique to software. It also applies to other types of information usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly technical like information about nuclear weapons, or utterly mundane like a person’s name, address or telephone number.
> Even if the virus author merely posts the source code and fails to release it in active form, the issue remains whether the posting was done with an intent to communicate. If the author claims that she intended it to communicate, we would need to examine the context to decide the plausibility of that claim. There will often be a plausible claim. There is no question that people study viruses and other dangerous software in order to prevent or relieve harm.193 One way to control a virus is to publish its source code so that systems operators can disable or protect against it. Communicating a virus’ source code as part of such an effort qualifies as a speech act because the publisher intends to communicate how the virus works in a conventional way. In fact, one could imagine entire journals or Internet sites devoted to viruses and other dangerous software.194 When such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers, their intent is clearly communicative.
sent from eddan.com
we've been having discussions around membership and access. as part of that
discussion, i volunteered to consolidate some of the various ideas for
benefits that we can tie to membership.
check out the suggestions, add your own, keep a discussion going:
That having been said, I also would stand by Marc's actions. There should be some way to put a temporary suspension on an email address in the immediate term to stop a barrage of emails as a cooling off mechanism.
I think it's worth acknowledging how thankless a job running a listserv can be and thank Marc for doing it for as long as he has, with very little help, and while being admirably responsive. I've never done that job myself, and don't envy the position.
On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote:
> I'll 4th & 5th that.
> I was trying to direct Giovanni's enthusiasm to be most useful on the Sudo-radio list. I still think that would be the most appropriate move.
> It is in fact true that this is a huge and awesome open window in spectrum allocation and it would be a shame to miss it. How Giovanni has tried to go about convincing everyone of that has clearly been counter-productive. His promise to put together a brief note about how to register before Nov. 14 and what it takes to do that - would be very useful information.
> I dare say though that if annoying is a criteria for being banned on this list - as a subjective matter many would be on thin ice. (No offense. Myself included.)
> I think that ad hoc unilateral banning is an overextension of the individual power any Sudo-er should have. Something that was mentioned could justify removal from the Board. I would suggest we have more than one person with the power to ban people from our mailing list. And that those people be charged with doing do according to some predictable and ascertainable policy.
> sent from eddan.com
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:47 AM, "Danny Spitzberg" <stationaery(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wholeheartedly 2nd, 3rd the sentiment and suggestion to have a conversation (via email if not IRL) with Giovanni to tame his exuberance and use the list more judiciously.
>> "Banning" without first taking initiative to educate and include in understanding expecte practices is straight-up draconian -- eliminating not solving the problem.
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Banning someone for being annoying is something you guys will probably have to do often and you should definitely not do it.
>> As far as I can tell, what makes NB dis functional is their commitment to come one come all. "All" is not a great group, necessarily. If you are trying to build a club that is self-governing, it has to have people in it whose judgment you trust. There's nothing wrong with that I think.
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
>> IMHO that seems excessively harsh. Banning someone from the list is similar enough to banning them from the space, that it seems to me such things entail a collective action by the community rather than an administrative action or unilateral action by e.g. a list admin or someone with keys to the door. Spambots and overt criminals are one thing, but people who are merely annoying in some way are another.
>> Really: With all the talk about anarcho-this and collectivist-that and consensus-the-other-thing, seems to me that unilaterally banning someone for being merely annoying is a pretty major contradiction to core principles.
>> If you or someone else wants to ban someone from the list or the space, aside from emergencies such as bots and criminals, there are dispute-resolution processes in place for that.
>> So I'm going to stick my neck out and ask that you reinstate him on the list, and initiate the use of whatever collective processes exist for resolving the issues you have with him.
>> On 13-10-31-Thu 2:54 AM, Marc Juul wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
>>> What happened? I thought the "john re" address had been captured or spoofed by a spammer, but "giovanni_re" was a legit user, most recently discussing the FCC application. Did the _giovanni_re" identity turn out to be some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing? -G
>>> He was banned for spamming the list about the FCC thing. Nine emails in nine different threads over the course of a few hours about a project that he has stated that he himself is not willing to work on. That is not reasonable. He also showed up for the sudo room and counter culture labs meetings and took an unreasonable amount of the community's time trying to push this project onto others. It appears that he has been doing similar things at noisebridge and other tech groups in the bay area.
>>> In addition: Starting and running an LPFM station is no minor undertaking, and Giovanni has continued his attempts to push this on people even in the face of little interest. This might have all been fine if he was actually spearheading the project, but he is not.
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
Running a listserv is a completely thankless job.
You're just witnessing how giovanni_re/john fastmail/john/john regan works. I don't think
he's a bad person. He's not assaulting anyone. He is genuinely excited about computers
and Linux and communities and free software. His usual mode is he joins a free culture/
community/open source software community mailing list, and then every few months or so
starts cross posting interesting links or forwarding emails from one list to the other,
no editing, just WHAM here read email from this other place, not realizing that if someone
wants to read email from the other mailing list, they would just JOIN that mailing list,
no need to forward it. He's been doing this for over 10 years. He'll be doing it
long after sudoroom is gone.
You usually don't notice what's happening because he's on a LOT of mailing lists, and annoying
each of the mailing lists is a lot of work, so he doesn't get around to forwarding stuff
to your mailing list until about a month in the cycle.
Sometimes he gets super excited about something ( RADIO! ) and starts concentrating on
your particular community, and boom you get the 10 emails in 1 hour problem you just saw.
Unknown how to properly deal with him. People don't join his list BerkeleyTIP so he feels
the need to branch out. Personally, I think it would help if he fixed the links on his site
that are broken and updated and are over 4 years old now. That would be a great start.
John, you have a perfectly good wiki over on BerkeleyTIP. You could update it with spectrum FCC
radio announcements. You've been trying to get inspire Noisebridge and Sudoroom to grab
some spectrum of their own. Getting your website in order would be a good start.
Get your own ILoveBeer.ca email, <yourname>@ilovebeer.ca!
there's been a whole lotta talk and excitement about "do-ocracy" and,
occasionally, adhocracy. That's rad!
I'd like to question the notion that "do-ocracy" is the logical end of
collective efforts. In my view, do-ocracy is a great practice and ethic
that is best served embedded in a loaf baked with intention, care, and...
To substantiate that, I'd like to share a one-page doc I composed that
situates do-ocracy as a phase between two others, one the early "dream"
state and the other an advanced "democracy" (so-called). While these phases
exist on a gradient and can (and should) organically bleed into one
another, there are important distinctions and caveats.
I hope this sparks some constructive conversation around accountability and
alignment within the group. Really, I do!
[image: Inline image 1]
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote:
> just wondering how you're thinking about resumes that are available online
> or on a personal blog as different from LinkedIn, etc.. sincerely not sure
> what you mean by this paragraph below.
> sent from eddan.com
> > On Oct 26, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also think it's important we de-emphasize the Board as much as
> possible - and in that vein would like to propose that anyone elected to
> the board not list their "position" on LinkedIn, Facebook etc to avoid the
> public image of having a hierarchical structure. However, it is indeed a
> position of responsibility that reflects commitment to the group and, as
> such, folks elected should be allowed to list it on job applications and
> resumes if so desired. In a similar vein, anyone on the compact should very
> much consider themselves a co-founder!
Replying to you, Eddan, as well as the list, in case anyone else was
confused by this proposal. I was just thinking about the public perception
of hierarchy and ways to minimize that. My distinguishing between LinkedIn
and job applications was to distinguish between publicly- and
privately-communicated content - so an online [public] blog, resume, etc
would fall in the same category as LinkedIn for all intents and purposes.
Just a suggestion, happy to discuss!
Tonight's meeting has morphed enthusiastically into a planning session
for this week's first friday / art murmur. In two days, we'll be at
the intersection of:
* Halloween / Day of the Dead / All Souls
* Sudoroom's first anniversary of moving into our current space
* Filing our corp papers in Sacramento
* Expanding to new spaces & new ventures
So we're going to throw a birthday party for ourselves on Friday
night. We're going to bill it as an Art Murmur afterparty from around
7pm to 2am. It will be advertised as having a fundraiser component
(donation pitches + raffle), but not as a fundraiser. The promotional
materials are being designed right now and we'll have them ready to go
viral by tomorrow morning.
Here are things we need your help with NOW:
* THINGS TO RAFFLE - things and services
* A/V STUFF - we have an awesome DJ lined up but need equipment
* CATERING - food/drink
* your input and ideas for this party and all logistics
* invite all your friends
* wear a great costume