Since my new proposal was buried in the earlier thread, I am submitting the following:
Add the word "mandate" before the word "vote" in step 1, prong 3, so that it would read:
- At least 1 week before the meeting at which a [mandate] vote on the amendment will be held
This proposal is to bring greater clarity to the voting and drafting process, which I believe has been a significant obstacle in knowing how to proceed.
The way it would work then, would be that a proposal is made for something - such as the creation of a constable/ombudsperson/steward. To be precise, the mandate vote that is called for does not constitute approval of the specific language that will modify the Articles of Association.
If meeting the appropriate vote threshold, all members of Sudo Room are then invited to propose language o effectuate that mandate.
The drafting process would work best as a consensus process if there are more than one specific language proposals. Presumably, the language proposals, which can be only about a part of implementing the mandate, not necessarily the whole thing. When there are different proposals that articulate solutions from various perspectives, the back-and-forth compromise & debate opens up the possibility of compromise and thus consensus.
So, in order to do this in a performative fashion - I am officially proposing the Mandate Vote proposal (not a change to the Articles of Association). I will put together a wiki page that will include explanations of what problem is being addressed, how this will solve it, and what other impacts can be anticipated.
If a mandate exists amongst Sudo Room members to put together a specific language proposal, I will then invite commentary and suggestions p my proposed language. In this case, very simply, the addition of the word mandate before vote in the Amendments section.
As I've suggested for other drafting initiatives in order to allow for the broadest participation in a structured way - this will be a 3-stage process. For ten days following the vote - a GREEN draft will be distributed and discussion will focus at a more broad and thematic level. For the 3 days following, an ORANGE draft will be up for discussion that will work on sentence-level changes in the relevant parts of the draft. There will then be 1 day for word specific changes (only) before the draft text is submitted for consensus approval.
If consensus is not achieved, no changes in the Articles are effectuated.
sent from eddan.com
Hi y'all.
I was looking on the wiki regarding donations and is there an updated
policy on computer donations? I have two complete systems (minus cases) and
another few boxes of decent parts that i am trying to get rid of.
Is this something that would be okay to bring by/freebox/ or put on the
supply shelves. Is there any need for this sort of stuff?
I also was looking on the calendar and wanted to let you know there is a
poetry reading that would overflow into the common space on Thursday 3/21.
It is there on the calendar but unpublished. One of the two meet ups could
definitely use the Public School classroom if this event needs the bigger
space.
Best,
-Marty
--
www.resonantcity.net
twitter: @resonantcity <https://twitter.com/#!/resonantcity> ,
@uselessunless <https://twitter.com/#!/uselessunless> [ personal ]
http://www.facebook.com/ResonantCity <https://www.facebook.com/ResonantCity>
Since my new proposal is buried in the thread, I am starting a new thread submitting the following:
Add the word "mandate" before the word "vote" in step 1, prong 3, so that it would read:
- At least 1 week before the meeting at which a [mandate] vote on the amendment will be held
This proposal is to bring greater clarity to the voting and drafting process, which I believe has been a significant obstacle in knowing how to proceed.
The way it would work then, would be that a proposal is made for something - such as the creation of a constable/ombudsperson/steward. To be precise, the mandate vote that is called for does not constitute approval of the specific language that will modify the Articles of Association.
If meeting the appropriate vote threshold, all members of Sudo Room are then invited to propose language o effectuate that mandate.
The drafting process would work best as a consensus process if there are more than one specific language proposals. Presumably, the language proposals, which can be only about a part of implementing the mandate, not necessarily the whole thing. When there are different proposals that articulate solutions from various perspectives, the back-and-forth compromise & debate opens up the possibility of compromise and thus consensus.
So, in order to do this in a performative fashion - I am officially proposing the Mandate Vote proposal (not a change to the Articles of Association). I will put together a wiki page that will include explanations of what problem is being addressed, how this will solve it, and what other impacts can be anticipated.
If a mandate exists amongst Sudo Room members to put together a specific language proposal, I will then invite commentary and suggestions p my proposed language. In this case, very simply, the addition of the word mandate before vote in the Amendments section.
As I've suggested for other drafting initiatives in order to allow for the broadest participation in a structured way - this will be a 3-stage process. For ten days following the vote - a GREEN draft will be distributed and discussion will focus at a more broad and thematic level. For the 3 days following, an ORANGE draft will be up for discussion that will work on sentence-level changes in the relevant parts of the draft. There will then be 1 day for word specific changes (only) before the draft text is submitted for consensus approval.
If consensus is not achieved, no changes in the Articles are effectuated.
sent from eddan.com
Woops, not 4cuts. The problem says 4 pieces! The game is still on!
// Matt
----- Reply message -----
From: "mattsenate(a)gmail.com" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com>
To: "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: Just solved puzzle of the week
Date: Sun, Mar 10, 2013 11:39 AM
You have a rectangular prism of dimensions 8 x 8 x 27.
Turn it into a cube in 4 cuts.
Will post answer on back if mini chalk board in sudo.
// Matt
Very reasonable assessment IMHO. I did try to communicate, I was specifically uncomfortable about removing fairness from the conflict resolution process and have sense posted my suggested changes for discussion.
I think errors of omission are important to note, just as errors of fact or logic might be.
// Matt
----- Reply message -----
From: "Max Klein" <isalix(a)gmail.com>
To: <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Last night: conflict resolution proposal (Eddan)
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 9:55 AM
I'm responding to what Eddan has said, with my perspective from faciliator
last night.
1. The Articles say that amendments require consensus.
2. From my perspective as Facilitator last night, consensus on the
Constable changes were almost reached, because
3, A straw poll of those wanting to vote, gave a unanimous yes,
4, and then a straw poll for accepting constable changes was almost
unanimous, except that,
5. A member blocked the consensus process, which
6. Is an allowable and natural part of the consensus process.
Up to here, I think that the process and content ran properly and validly -
albeit tiring and onerous (to be expected).
7. The next step in the Consensus process, is to address the blocking
concern (I may not have faciltated this portion correctly).
8. The reason given, as I saw it, from the blocking member was that they
wanted more time to personally comb and edit the Constable policy.
9. Group must consider if there is valid reason to extend blocking member
additional time, beyond the prescribed proposal process.
En sum,
I think that as facilitator I should have extended the discussion past 6 to
7,8, and 9.
That's my lesson from last night.
notconfusing
From: Eddan <eddan(a)clear.net>
> To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 02:43:28 -0800
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
> Dear Sudo folk -
>
> As now ought to be assumed amongst the illustrious Sudo Room body,
> dedicated as we are to a deliberative process, a point of contention arose
> around the process itself. The honest disagreement and confusion, as far
> as I understand it, is fundamentally about how we agree to approve the
> establishment of a position deputized to make sure the process is followed
> and make sure that conflicts move towards fair and efficient resolution.
> If the previous sentence makes some sense but also makes your head hurt, as
> it does mine, you won't be surprised to find out there was some confusion
> in this evening's meeting over what exactly we're supposed to do.
>
> The vote on adding the role of constable came up as was announced last
> week, and it was agreed that Anthony has followed meticulous process as we
> have it laid out so far, giving everyone plentiful opportunity to discuss
> and object and to make available in-person and on-line opportunities to
> improve on the proposal. Discussion over the need for such a role has
> persistently come up that represented various points of view on several
> specific aspects of the proposal. Debate was halted at regular intervals
> to give the less aggressive and talkative folks (in addition to me) around
> an opportunity to interject; and everyone was reminded of the option for
> anonymous commenting on the etherpad and for direct editing on the wiki.
> This took place over a period of about 6 weeks and more, in as formal a
> method as we've made up along the way so far.
>
> The reasonable difference in interpretation to put it simply, is how to
> add a position to the Articles of Association by: (1) 2/3 vote; or must be
> done (2) by consensus. There are many other issues implied by this for
> sure, some of which have been brought up already and other conditionals
> still to be worked out. I also think re-hashing the play-by-play events of
> tonight would be unproductive and that considerations on the merits of the
> constable role be limited to high-level comments and would be best served
> without delving into too many details about the role. In other words, I'm
> suggesting we separate out the process by which we (a) find consensus on
> language amending the articles of association; and (b) decide on whether we
> need to add a Constable (or related functionary) role.
>
> So this is the part where it gets kind of tricky. Here are some questions
> it seems to me need to be clarified in order to move forward:
> What does the Amendments section of the Articles (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Article_4._Amendments)
> say about the process by which we approve adding a functionary position?
> What does the Functionaries section (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_2.2_Sudo_Functiona…)
> say about how to amend the Articles to create another position?
> Do the decision procedures categorized in the dispute resolution process (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_3.4_Enforcement)
> give us guidance on the process that should be followed in creating a new
> functionary role?
> If so, what process (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.40_Process)
> for approving the addition of a Constable (or equivalent) role be followed?
> What part of the agenda structure (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.0.1_Agenda)
> is the most appropriate category for adding a functionary role?
> How do we go about advancing our values (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values) in making these
> decisions?
>
> I won't represent anyone else's position on their behalf, but will say
> that I think consensus is not the right process by which the Constable role
> be approved. This being said, I do think that whatever language is drafted
> to amend the Articles to include this new role be done by consensus.
> Having a common understanding of how this ought to be done in detail is
> crucial, in my opinion, to avoid further misunderstandings and wide
> divergence of interpretation. I propose as I did at the meeting tonight
> that these two parts of the decision need to be disentangled for any
> progress to be made. Upon reflection, I would have presented that proposal
> differently and with more specific reference to the Articles. Suffice it
> to say that we're figuring out how to do this stuff in some ways we're not
> used to, and that we all have a lot to learn from each other.
>
> In sum, I propose that there be a vote next week on adding a Constable (or
> equivalent) to the functionaries in the Articles, and that the vote require
> 2/3 approval, our highest threshold thus far. Since there are so many
> ancillary issues, I'd rather hear other Sudo folks' perspective before
> making too much of a case for this way of moving forward. Seems to me that
> the complications of getting to this vote make the greatest case for the
> need for such a role, to keep things moving in a productive direction. The
> constable (or ombudsperson as I had proposed), is not an ultimate judge of
> conflicts in my understanding. In fact, rotating ombudspeople and/or a
> jury of peers is more along the lines of what I've heard proposed. Rather,
> I think we need someone like a Constable to make sure we get unstuck when
> trying to resolve disputes and decide on things.
>
> May God Bless Sudo Room.
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
>
> ----
>
> On Feb 22, 2013 11:17 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sudyo,
> I have edited in a more advanced draft of my proposal for a rigorous
> conflict resolution process and for the role of a Constable to facilitate
> the keeping of open and transparent records about conflicts and where their
> resolution stands.
> I emailed a bit about this a few weeks ago in response to the long and
> unsatisfactory non-process the group had just spent a lot of time in, and I
> presented a much briefer version of this proposal at last week's meeting. I
> intend to have it up for a vote at the next eligible meeting.
> I have tried to incorporate the feedback I received during the meeting
> and to think through a process that would capture the original intent of
> the sketchy previous language but flesh it out with comprehensive detail
> and precision, and I had firmly in mind the memories of the shortcomings of
> the old process in practice. While I was there mucking around in the
> articles I fixed a few other odd things that were lying around. (It also
> still seems to me that the numbering is off.)
> The whole draft, with my and other changes, is, as usual, here:
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Draft
>
> Highlights:
> Emphasize horizontality in the Functionaries in general and in the
> Constable in particular: section 2.2: "Any member of sudoroom may perform
> any of the functions of any of the Functionaries, but the Functionaries are
> expected to perform their duties regularly and must perform them if no one
> else can or will." and section 3.4.1 below.
> Define role of Constable (section 2.2)
> Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according to
> the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
> Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among conflicting
> parties and moderator.
> Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
> resolution process.
> Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties on
> a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
> stronger community.
> If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
> Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
> with reference to the documentation.
> Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
> Precise and comprehensive conflict resolution procedure:
>
> Section 3.4 Enforcement
> [edit]Sub-Section 3.4.0 Process
> The resolution of disputes and disagreements within sudo room is
> encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative
> environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not
> resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of
> association:
> The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Constable in the
> matter, and works with this Constable to find a Mediator.
> The Mediator is an impartial and uninvolved third party who consents to
> assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work with towards
> a solution.
> The Constable organizes meetings for conflict resolution and maintains
> records of all meetings and relevant communications among the conflicting
> parties.
> The Constable, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to meet to
> work out a resolution to the conflict that all conflicting parties consent
> to.
> If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at least
> one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time, all
> relevant circumstances considered, or if the Constable and Mediator agree
> after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely to
> lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the following
> way:
> The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting scheduled at
> least one week in the future, and all relevant documentation is gathered
> together by the Constable and made available to the group at least one week
> beforehand, preferably on the wiki, and notice is broadcast to the group,
> preferably on the mailing list, but information that would compromise
> anyone's privacy or dignity is not made public. In the description of the
> issue, the form of redress sought in by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both
> the Constable and Mediator must give their approval of the factual content
> of the documentation before it is posted. Both the Constable and Mediator
> must expressly affirm that the form of redress sought by the plaintiff(s)
> is consistent with sudo room's values.
> During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all unresolved
> issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a vote.
> First, the Constable presents all relevant documentation about the issue.
> Then, a category of severity is established by consensus according to sudo
> room's values and the facts of the case. The category determines the voting
> threshold for sustaining a sanction against any party to the conflict. The
> categories are (in order of decreasing severity):
> Any matter calling for membership suspension or termination.
> Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
> Other serious conflict.
> Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
> Conflict where only fiscal issues are involved and only fiscal redress is
> sought.
> Decision Procedure: 1/2 vote
> All other conflicts.
> Decision Procedure: Consensus
> Positive feedback.
> Decision Procedure: Auto-approval
> Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted to each
> conflicting party and to the Mediator, and general discussion may be held
> about the issue if any member wishes. The Constable co-facilitates with the
> Facilitator in order to answer questions specific to the conflict and
> provides information about the history of the conflict by referring to the
> documentation.
> Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is held, during
> which members are free to consider the issue or discuss it directly with
> others.
> Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict, which are
> added to a list of potential remedies if neither the Constable nor the
> Mediator objects. They may be overruled in their objections if a second
> member supports the proposal.
> Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy, and then
> alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were proposed, but
> only if at least one member indicates that the one under consideration is
> still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in this way, the
> matter is considered resolved.
> Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place an appeal on
> the agenda in the same way that conflicts are placed on the agenda, except
> that a majority of the group must vote to accept the appeal during a
> meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal must propose an
> alternative remedy and refer to values that were not served by the original
> decision.
> If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour has passed
> during the current meeting in considering the conflict, any member may
> request that a majority vote be held on whether to table the conflict until
> the next meeting.
> [edit]Sub-Section 3.4.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
> The accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise beyond
> reasonable doubt.
> Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members is consistently
> maintained.
> Proportional and effective remedies should be sought.
> Restorative remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies.
> More precise language about functionaries:
> Facilitator
> Maintains the agenda for meetings, ensures topics are dealt with, and
> recognizes speakers in a fair and inclusive way.
> Ensures that all group business is handled and all group decisions are
> made in the way described in these Articles of Association, by bearing them
> in mind and referring to them whenever needed.
> Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of Association
> about how business is handled in meetings, but may be challenged in this by
> anyone who does not consent, which results in a majority vote on sustaining
> or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
> Scribe
> Takes notes during meetings and collaborates with others to include their
> notes in final meeting minutes.
> Posts notes publicly after each meeting.
> Exchequer
> Presents the budget during meetings, as articulated in the budget process
> below.
> Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
> using the group's accounts.
> Maintains accurate budget documentation and makes it available to the
> group.
> Constable
> Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according to
> the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
> Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among conflicting
> parties and moderator.
> Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
> resolution process.
> Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties on
> a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
> stronger community.
> If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
> Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
> with reference to the documentation.
> Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Oh hai,
We're going to have a small NymRights gathering at sudo room next
Saturday at 2pm. A quick summary of what we'll be discussing. Anyone
is welcome to join, the more people we get involved, the better a
group we can be!
On the agenda:
Discussion of Phoenix Plenary from February
Creation of suggested naming policy for websites
Upcoming IIW workshop and IDESG meeting (which is in Mountain View)
Stay tuned to nymrights.org for more updates!
Cheers,
aestetix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROYvJAAoJEOrRfDwkjbpTrJ0IAIljuEbsgL05Eg34e9iwMRdD
hfU7JRuXeUrLeZLMBY4fjjRCz4KOmcx91srpK4VEYD+PmK0dFtM2zp5Y991juOff
JE6ppyeMo8wboKcsaU6v7oin68afWdYeX6sEhgdzNbdvQDxmmyuPaP/GZOKz6ZNw
gYkbBw/tDhygRbr0WQvU0A1B98Ck0HUaOwXbHL4aiAZqmATDK7/npqWITn8rZDPP
gjWfWmsecBWJTvzo6xL1pKPCFo2FgUOusPlANIgXKnxqZuKH2UAz58hdArvSuGhb
/c9JgyWkyAQhD8XoyBhvyNjPS5y52xUJ7gKp4+n0kq9IyR9SIzj/SPmvHg7+Wl8=
=sLam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
thanks to Hol and all the folks at Microcontroller Hack Night who made
my first time to Sudo Room so engaging, enjoyable and delicious! Great
guac and salsa!
Sudo Room felt kind of like when I first came into Portland's Free
Geek 12 years ago. Lots of radical F/OSS folks trying to solve the
worlds problems by helping each other learn to do stuff! The major
difference was that Free Geek specifically targets the two most
formidable problems with technology (imho) by using e-waste and the
Digital Divide against each other. But we had lots of tinkering just
the same.
I adore what yalls have created and hope to return again soon. Er, I
forgot the name of the northern European guy (I thank he was Dutch)
with whom I was speaking about bike powered electronics, but I have
loads more questions.
phil
------------------------------------------------------
erotic elegance and ergonomic efficiency
------------------- Bike Smut --------------------
I thought of this during the meeting but didn't want to veer too far off
topic, but since the analogy of articles amendment to software
development (particularly version control) came up, I thought this was
pertinent. At certain points during the Articles of Association, it
might be a good idea to write tests.
Test Driven Development is an integral part of a lot of software
development - coming up with different situations and contexts of how
your software is used. But it can actually be applied here quite easily
- especially to the 'conflict resolution' sections. How well do the
articles we've agreed upon handle different types of conflicts? Well,
we can write test cases for them. For instance:
Test Case 1: Someone has stolen money from the donations jar
Test Case 2: An injury happens at Sudoroom
The more tests we write, the better the coverage of the articles are in
different situations. This may also help elucidate the gaps where our
articles may need amending.
Writing tests also actually helps clarify the meaning and intention of
articles with more obtuse language.
I was going to go create a wiki page on it, but the server rejected me
from creating a login for some reason :(
Bill
Woops... I sent the wrong CVE. There was one for Tornado that was also open
and when I bopped back and forth between my windows I copy-pasted the wrong
URL. Sorry.
I'll try to figure out which one I'd pulled up from the scripts I ran on
sudoroom.org yesterday (as opposed to the others that popped up from the
other things I was looking at. *groan*).
- Lish (feeling really dumb at the moment...)
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> you should join our list sudo-sys :D
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-sys
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Lisha Sterling <lishevita(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to give a heads up that we've got some cross-site scripting
>> vulnerabilities in the sudoroom websever that sits at 50.0.83.116
>>
>> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-4558
>> for more info...
>>
>> - Lisha
>>
>> --
>> http://www.alwayssababa.com/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
--
http://www.alwayssababa.com/
I agree with the sentiment, and in lieu of suggesting an alternative at first, decided to ask for more thoughts, so thanks.
However, even if it is a process we do now, I disagree that (a) it is absolutely necessary for the exchequer specifically to do this rather than to support the overall process and encourage better systems to automate and (b) it need not be codified in the description of the role, but instead as documentation, best practices, recommendations, etc such as on a wiki page. Further, I would suggest if we did want to keep it in, that we think long and hard, but add it to the fiscal solvency process, for which we are collectively responsible, and the exchequer may be the first or default person to implement or act.
Do you think it reasonable to make a new wiki page instead for exchequer operational insight?
// Matt
----- Reply message -----
From: "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com>
Cc: "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Subject: [sudo-discuss] Constable amendment changes
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 9:04 AM
In the second case, I added this because handling the money and being
authorized to use the accounts was key to my being exchequer, and will
remain so, and even if aspects of the processes of handling money are
delegated, distributed, automated, (it happened with wepay a bit,) these
basics remain necessary as a default.
On Mar 7, 2013 2:49 AM, "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> hey all,
>
> here are the changes I described in the mtg tonight:
> http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association%2FCon…
>
> This page's history has:
> (a) the current Articles
> (b) the proposal from tonight
> (c) my proposed changes
>
> // Matt
>
> p.s.
>
> I left out some bits about Facilitator and Exchequer, but the rest is
> mainly re-worded, reduced, and refined. The omitted pieces (due to
> unnecessary in the first case since majority vote already over-rules
> facilitator, and too specific for the second case):
>
> Facilitator:
>
> ** Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of
> Association about how business is handled in meetings, but may be
> challenged in this by anyone who does not consent, which results in a
> majority vote on sustaining or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
>
> Exchequer:
>
> ** Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
> using the group's accounts.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
I'm responding to what Eddan has said, with my perspective from faciliator
last night.
1. The Articles say that amendments require consensus.
2. From my perspective as Facilitator last night, consensus on the
Constable changes were almost reached, because
3, A straw poll of those wanting to vote, gave a unanimous yes,
4, and then a straw poll for accepting constable changes was almost
unanimous, except that,
5. A member blocked the consensus process, which
6. Is an allowable and natural part of the consensus process.
Up to here, I think that the process and content ran properly and validly -
albeit tiring and onerous (to be expected).
7. The next step in the Consensus process, is to address the blocking
concern (I may not have faciltated this portion correctly).
8. The reason given, as I saw it, from the blocking member was that they
wanted more time to personally comb and edit the Constable policy.
9. Group must consider if there is valid reason to extend blocking member
additional time, beyond the prescribed proposal process.
En sum,
I think that as facilitator I should have extended the discussion past 6 to
7,8, and 9.
That's my lesson from last night.
notconfusing
From: Eddan <eddan(a)clear.net>
> To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 02:43:28 -0800
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] conflict resolution proposal
> Dear Sudo folk -
>
> As now ought to be assumed amongst the illustrious Sudo Room body,
> dedicated as we are to a deliberative process, a point of contention arose
> around the process itself. The honest disagreement and confusion, as far
> as I understand it, is fundamentally about how we agree to approve the
> establishment of a position deputized to make sure the process is followed
> and make sure that conflicts move towards fair and efficient resolution.
> If the previous sentence makes some sense but also makes your head hurt, as
> it does mine, you won't be surprised to find out there was some confusion
> in this evening's meeting over what exactly we're supposed to do.
>
> The vote on adding the role of constable came up as was announced last
> week, and it was agreed that Anthony has followed meticulous process as we
> have it laid out so far, giving everyone plentiful opportunity to discuss
> and object and to make available in-person and on-line opportunities to
> improve on the proposal. Discussion over the need for such a role has
> persistently come up that represented various points of view on several
> specific aspects of the proposal. Debate was halted at regular intervals
> to give the less aggressive and talkative folks (in addition to me) around
> an opportunity to interject; and everyone was reminded of the option for
> anonymous commenting on the etherpad and for direct editing on the wiki.
> This took place over a period of about 6 weeks and more, in as formal a
> method as we've made up along the way so far.
>
> The reasonable difference in interpretation to put it simply, is how to
> add a position to the Articles of Association by: (1) 2/3 vote; or must be
> done (2) by consensus. There are many other issues implied by this for
> sure, some of which have been brought up already and other conditionals
> still to be worked out. I also think re-hashing the play-by-play events of
> tonight would be unproductive and that considerations on the merits of the
> constable role be limited to high-level comments and would be best served
> without delving into too many details about the role. In other words, I'm
> suggesting we separate out the process by which we (a) find consensus on
> language amending the articles of association; and (b) decide on whether we
> need to add a Constable (or related functionary) role.
>
> So this is the part where it gets kind of tricky. Here are some questions
> it seems to me need to be clarified in order to move forward:
> What does the Amendments section of the Articles (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Article_4._Amendments)
> say about the process by which we approve adding a functionary position?
> What does the Functionaries section (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_2.2_Sudo_Functiona…)
> say about how to amend the Articles to create another position?
> Do the decision procedures categorized in the dispute resolution process (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Section_3.4_Enforcement)
> give us guidance on the process that should be followed in creating a new
> functionary role?
> If so, what process (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.40_Process)
> for approving the addition of a Constable (or equivalent) role be followed?
> What part of the agenda structure (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Sub-Section_3.0.1_Agenda)
> is the most appropriate category for adding a functionary role?
> How do we go about advancing our values (
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values) in making these
> decisions?
>
> I won't represent anyone else's position on their behalf, but will say
> that I think consensus is not the right process by which the Constable role
> be approved. This being said, I do think that whatever language is drafted
> to amend the Articles to include this new role be done by consensus.
> Having a common understanding of how this ought to be done in detail is
> crucial, in my opinion, to avoid further misunderstandings and wide
> divergence of interpretation. I propose as I did at the meeting tonight
> that these two parts of the decision need to be disentangled for any
> progress to be made. Upon reflection, I would have presented that proposal
> differently and with more specific reference to the Articles. Suffice it
> to say that we're figuring out how to do this stuff in some ways we're not
> used to, and that we all have a lot to learn from each other.
>
> In sum, I propose that there be a vote next week on adding a Constable (or
> equivalent) to the functionaries in the Articles, and that the vote require
> 2/3 approval, our highest threshold thus far. Since there are so many
> ancillary issues, I'd rather hear other Sudo folks' perspective before
> making too much of a case for this way of moving forward. Seems to me that
> the complications of getting to this vote make the greatest case for the
> need for such a role, to keep things moving in a productive direction. The
> constable (or ombudsperson as I had proposed), is not an ultimate judge of
> conflicts in my understanding. In fact, rotating ombudspeople and/or a
> jury of peers is more along the lines of what I've heard proposed. Rather,
> I think we need someone like a Constable to make sure we get unstuck when
> trying to resolve disputes and decide on things.
>
> May God Bless Sudo Room.
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
>
> ----
>
> On Feb 22, 2013 11:17 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sudyo,
> I have edited in a more advanced draft of my proposal for a rigorous
> conflict resolution process and for the role of a Constable to facilitate
> the keeping of open and transparent records about conflicts and where their
> resolution stands.
> I emailed a bit about this a few weeks ago in response to the long and
> unsatisfactory non-process the group had just spent a lot of time in, and I
> presented a much briefer version of this proposal at last week's meeting. I
> intend to have it up for a vote at the next eligible meeting.
> I have tried to incorporate the feedback I received during the meeting
> and to think through a process that would capture the original intent of
> the sketchy previous language but flesh it out with comprehensive detail
> and precision, and I had firmly in mind the memories of the shortcomings of
> the old process in practice. While I was there mucking around in the
> articles I fixed a few other odd things that were lying around. (It also
> still seems to me that the numbering is off.)
> The whole draft, with my and other changes, is, as usual, here:
> http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Draft
>
> Highlights:
> Emphasize horizontality in the Functionaries in general and in the
> Constable in particular: section 2.2: "Any member of sudoroom may perform
> any of the functions of any of the Functionaries, but the Functionaries are
> expected to perform their duties regularly and must perform them if no one
> else can or will." and section 3.4.1 below.
> Define role of Constable (section 2.2)
> Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according to
> the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
> Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among conflicting
> parties and moderator.
> Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
> resolution process.
> Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties on
> a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
> stronger community.
> If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
> Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
> with reference to the documentation.
> Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
> Precise and comprehensive conflict resolution procedure:
>
> Section 3.4 Enforcement
> [edit]Sub-Section 3.4.0 Process
> The resolution of disputes and disagreements within sudo room is
> encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative
> environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not
> resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of
> association:
> The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Constable in the
> matter, and works with this Constable to find a Mediator.
> The Mediator is an impartial and uninvolved third party who consents to
> assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work with towards
> a solution.
> The Constable organizes meetings for conflict resolution and maintains
> records of all meetings and relevant communications among the conflicting
> parties.
> The Constable, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to meet to
> work out a resolution to the conflict that all conflicting parties consent
> to.
> If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at least
> one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time, all
> relevant circumstances considered, or if the Constable and Mediator agree
> after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely to
> lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the following
> way:
> The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting scheduled at
> least one week in the future, and all relevant documentation is gathered
> together by the Constable and made available to the group at least one week
> beforehand, preferably on the wiki, and notice is broadcast to the group,
> preferably on the mailing list, but information that would compromise
> anyone's privacy or dignity is not made public. In the description of the
> issue, the form of redress sought in by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both
> the Constable and Mediator must give their approval of the factual content
> of the documentation before it is posted. Both the Constable and Mediator
> must expressly affirm that the form of redress sought by the plaintiff(s)
> is consistent with sudo room's values.
> During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all unresolved
> issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a vote.
> First, the Constable presents all relevant documentation about the issue.
> Then, a category of severity is established by consensus according to sudo
> room's values and the facts of the case. The category determines the voting
> threshold for sustaining a sanction against any party to the conflict. The
> categories are (in order of decreasing severity):
> Any matter calling for membership suspension or termination.
> Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
> Other serious conflict.
> Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote
> Conflict where only fiscal issues are involved and only fiscal redress is
> sought.
> Decision Procedure: 1/2 vote
> All other conflicts.
> Decision Procedure: Consensus
> Positive feedback.
> Decision Procedure: Auto-approval
> Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted to each
> conflicting party and to the Mediator, and general discussion may be held
> about the issue if any member wishes. The Constable co-facilitates with the
> Facilitator in order to answer questions specific to the conflict and
> provides information about the history of the conflict by referring to the
> documentation.
> Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is held, during
> which members are free to consider the issue or discuss it directly with
> others.
> Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict, which are
> added to a list of potential remedies if neither the Constable nor the
> Mediator objects. They may be overruled in their objections if a second
> member supports the proposal.
> Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy, and then
> alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were proposed, but
> only if at least one member indicates that the one under consideration is
> still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in this way, the
> matter is considered resolved.
> Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place an appeal on
> the agenda in the same way that conflicts are placed on the agenda, except
> that a majority of the group must vote to accept the appeal during a
> meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal must propose an
> alternative remedy and refer to values that were not served by the original
> decision.
> If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour has passed
> during the current meeting in considering the conflict, any member may
> request that a majority vote be held on whether to table the conflict until
> the next meeting.
> [edit]Sub-Section 3.4.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
> The accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise beyond
> reasonable doubt.
> Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members is consistently
> maintained.
> Proportional and effective remedies should be sought.
> Restorative remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies.
> More precise language about functionaries:
> Facilitator
> Maintains the agenda for meetings, ensures topics are dealt with, and
> recognizes speakers in a fair and inclusive way.
> Ensures that all group business is handled and all group decisions are
> made in the way described in these Articles of Association, by bearing them
> in mind and referring to them whenever needed.
> Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of Association
> about how business is handled in meetings, but may be challenged in this by
> anyone who does not consent, which results in a majority vote on sustaining
> or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
> Scribe
> Takes notes during meetings and collaborates with others to include their
> notes in final meeting minutes.
> Posts notes publicly after each meeting.
> Exchequer
> Presents the budget during meetings, as articulated in the budget process
> below.
> Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
> using the group's accounts.
> Maintains accurate budget documentation and makes it available to the
> group.
> Constable
> Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process according to
> the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
> Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among conflicting
> parties and moderator.
> Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
> resolution process.
> Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting parties on
> a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better relationships and a
> stronger community.
> If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates with
> Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict resolution
> with reference to the documentation.
> Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
>
>
hey all,
here are the changes I described in the mtg tonight:
http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association%2FCon…
This page's history has:
(a) the current Articles
(b) the proposal from tonight
(c) my proposed changes
// Matt
p.s.
I left out some bits about Facilitator and Exchequer, but the rest is
mainly re-worded, reduced, and refined. The omitted pieces (due to
unnecessary in the first case since majority vote already over-rules
facilitator, and too specific for the second case):
Facilitator:
** Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of
Association about how business is handled in meetings, but may be
challenged in this by anyone who does not consent, which results in a
majority vote on sustaining or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
Exchequer:
** Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
using the group's accounts.
Sudyo,
I have edited in a more advanced draft of my proposal for a rigorous
conflict resolution process and for the role of a Constable to facilitate
the keeping of open and transparent records about conflicts and where their
resolution stands.
I emailed a bit about this a few weeks ago in response to the long and
unsatisfactory non-process the group had just spent a lot of time in, and I
presented a much briefer version of this proposal at last week's meeting. I
intend to have it up for a vote at the next eligible meeting.
I have tried to incorporate the feedback I received during the meeting and
to think through a process that would capture the original intent of the
sketchy previous language but flesh it out with comprehensive detail and
precision, and I had firmly in mind the memories of the shortcomings of the
old process in practice. While I was there mucking around in the articles
I fixed a few other odd things that were lying around. (It also still seems
to me that the numbering is off.)
The whole draft, with my and other changes, is, as usual, here:
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Draft
*Highlights:*
*Emphasize horizontality in the Functionaries in general and in the
Constable in particular: section 2.2:* "Any member of sudoroom may perform
any of the functions of any of the Functionaries, but the Functionaries are
expected to perform their duties regularly and must perform them if no one
else can or will." *and section 3.4.1 below.*
- *Define role of Constable (section 2.2)*
-
- Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process
according to the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
- Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among
conflicting parties and moderator.
- Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
resolution process.
- Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting
parties on a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better
relationships and a stronger community.
- If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates
with Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict
resolution with reference to the documentation.
- Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
*Precise and comprehensive conflict resolution procedure:*
Section 3.4 Enforcement
[edit<http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association/Draft…>
]Sub-Section 3.4.0 Process
The resolution of disputes and disagreements within *sudo room* is
encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative
environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not
resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of
association:
1. The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Constable in
the matter, and works with this Constable to find a Mediator.
1. The Mediator is an impartial and uninvolved third party who
consents to assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work
with towards a solution.
2. The Constable organizes meetings for conflict resolution and
maintains records of all meetings and relevant communications among the
conflicting parties.
3. The Constable, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to
meet to work out a resolution to the conflict that all
conflicting parties
consent to.
2. If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at
least one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time,
all relevant circumstances considered, or if the Constable and Mediator
agree after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely
to lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the
following way:
1. The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting
scheduled at least one week in the future, and all relevant documentation
is gathered together by the Constable and made available to the group at
least one week beforehand, preferably on the wiki, and notice is
broadcast
to the group, preferably on the mailing list, but information that would
compromise anyone's privacy or dignity is not made public. In the
description of the issue, the form of redress sought in by the
plaintiff(s)
is included. Both the Constable and Mediator must give their approval of
the factual content of the documentation before it is posted. Both the
Constable and Mediator must expressly affirm that the form of redress
sought by the plaintiff(s) is consistent with *sudo room's* values.
2. During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all
unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a
vote.
1. First, the Constable presents all relevant documentation about
the issue.
2. Then, a category of severity is established by *consensus*
according
to *sudo room'*s values and the facts of the case. The category
determines the voting threshold for sustaining a sanction
against any party
to the conflict. The categories are (in order of decreasing severity):
1. Any matter calling for membership suspension or termination.
- *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote
2. Other serious conflict.
- *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote
3. Conflict where only fiscal issues are involved and only
fiscal redress is sought.
- *Decision Procedure:* 1/2 vote
4. All other conflicts.
- *Decision Procedure:* Consensus
5. Positive feedback.
- *Decision Procedure:* Auto-approval
3. Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted to
each conflicting party and to the Mediator, and general
discussion may be
held about the issue if any member wishes. The Constable
co-facilitates
with the Facilitator in order to answer questions specific to
the conflict
and provides information about the history of the conflict by
referring to
the documentation.
4. Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is held,
during which members are free to consider the issue or
discuss it directly
with others.
5. Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict,
which are added to a list of potential remedies if neither
the Constable
nor the Mediator objects. They may be overruled in their
objections if a
second member supports the proposal.
6. Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy,
and then alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were
proposed, but only if at least one member indicates that the one under
consideration is still relevant. After all remedies have been
considered in
this way, the matter is considered resolved.
7. Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place
an appeal on the agenda in the same way that conflicts are
placed on the
agenda, except that a majority of the group must vote to
accept the appeal
during a meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal
must propose an
alternative remedy and refer to values that were not served
by the original
decision.
8. If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour has
passed during the current meeting in considering the
conflict, any member
may request that a majority vote be held on whether to table
the conflict
until the next meeting.
[edit<http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association/Draft…>
]Sub-Section 3.4.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
1. The accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members is consistently
maintained.
3. Proportional and effective remedies should be sought.
4. Restorative <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice> remedies
are strongly preferred over
retributive<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice>
remedies.
*More precise language about functionaries:*
- Facilitator
- Maintains the agenda for meetings, ensures topics are dealt with,
and recognizes speakers in a fair and inclusive way.
- Ensures that all group business is handled and all group decisions
are made in the way described in these Articles of Association,
by bearing
them in mind and referring to them whenever needed.
- Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of
Association about how business is handled in meetings, but may be
challenged in this by anyone who does not consent, which results in a
majority vote on sustaining or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
- Scribe
- Takes notes during meetings and collaborates with others to include
their notes in final meeting minutes.
- Posts notes publicly after each meeting.
- Exchequer
- Presents the budget during meetings, as articulated in the budget
process below.
- Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the
group, using the group's accounts.
- Maintains accurate budget documentation and makes it available to
the group.
- Constable
- Point person for facilitating the conflict resolution process
according to the Articles, but not necessarily a moderator.
- Stewards selection of a moderator and schedules meetings among
conflicting parties and moderator.
- Documents all meetings and communications relevant to the conflict
resolution process.
- Promotes good-faith participation in the process by conflicting
parties on a basis of mutual respect and growth towards better
relationships and a stronger community.
- If conflict resolution goes before the whole group, co-facilitates
with Facilitator, and handles points of information about conflict
resolution with reference to the documentation.
- Does not act as Constable in conflicts involving self.
Hey Sudoers,
I think this is kind of neat. I'm working today on an anaerobic digester.
The first of its kind in America. Imported from Germany.
It uses "Green Waste" (Food Garbage and Branches and Other Plant matter)
and Digests it the same way a cow does. In the end you're left with High
Nutrition Fertilizer, and natural gas which is pumped into a generator
which powers the facility. There is no waste generated in this process.
That's all I know but yeah. It's pretty neat!
-Wolfy
this may be relevant to our community's interests!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martha Pettit <marthagpettit(a)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM
Subject: [nerdsfornature] Fwd: Actipedia has launched!
To: civic-design(a)googlegroups.com, nerdsfornature(a)googlegroups.com,
occupy-design(a)googlegroups.com, occupydata(a)googlegroups.com
Awesomeness!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Yes Lab <info(a)tmwrk.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Subject: Actipedia has launched!
To: marthagpettit(a)gmail.com
[image: Yes Lab]
*"Actipedia" Crowdsourcing Platform Goes Public*
*Database of creative activism case studies will inform and inspire a new
generation of activists*
The Yes Lab <http://yeslab.org/> and the Center for Artistic
Activism<http://artisticactivism.org/>are announcing the launch of
Actipedia.org, an open-access, user-generated
database of creative activism case studies designed to inspire activists.
"We designed Actipedia to inspire activists to more creative—and
effective—actions," explains Stephen Duncombe, co-founder of the Center for
Creative Activism.
"Actipedia is about sharing the ways people challenge power and envision a
better society," adds Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Lab. "To change the world
we've got to learn from each other."
Actipedia is built on an open-source platform and is designed for ease of
use, with simple formats for viewing, searching and posting examples. The
site draws case studies from original submissions, reprinted news articles,
and informal snippets of action reports. Although it is only now launching,
Actipedia already hosts over 400 case studies and counting, from countries
from all over the world.
"Actipedia provides a space for inspiration and for contribution," noted
one recent user. "Seeing all the amazing work going on around the world
motivates me and makes me realize the potential impact I can have."
Contact:
Stephen Duncombe
212-998-7327
srd(a)artisticactivism.org
http://actipedia.org
*The Yes Lab <http://yeslab.org/> helps activist groups carry out
media-getting creative actions, focused on their own campaign goals.
Through brainstorms and trainings, social justice organizations can take
advantage of all that the Yes Men—Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno—have
learned, not only about our their own ways of doing things, but those
practices they’ve come in contact with over the decade and a half they've
been engaging in creative activism and tactical media.*
*The Center for Artistic Activism <http://artisticactivism.org/> is a place
to explore, analyze, and strengthen connections between social activism and
artistic practice. The Center was founded by Stephen Duncombe, longtime
activist and professor at New York University and Steve Lambert, longtime
artist and professor at SUNY Purchase. Since 2009, the center has has
served as a site for artistic activist trainings, actions, research and
resources. The Center seeks to foster more creative activists and more
effective artists.*
Actipedia can be found at http://actipedia.org/ or on twitter
@Actipedia<https://twitter.com/Actipedia/>,
and the collaborators are available for interviews upon request.
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, click
here<http://tmwrk.com/civicrm/mailing/unsubscribe?reset=1&jid=147&qid=75941&h=5e…>
.
To never receive email from the Yes Lab, click
here<http://tmwrk.com/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=147&qid=75941&h=5e9ebd4…>
.
This email was sent from:
20 Cooper Square
Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10003
United States
[image: This has been a Yes Lab communique.]
--
*Martha Pettit
*
User Experience Designer,
Diligent Creative
martha(a)diligentcreative.com
http://staydiligent.com/ <http://diligentcreative.com/>
(415) 283-5733
901 Mission Street, Suite 105
San Francisco, CA 94103
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"NerdsforNature" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to nerdsfornature+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to nerdsfornature(a)googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nerdsfornature?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Yay! I want to come and learn next week!
wrt scheduling, please check out http:sudoroom.org/calendar for any
potential conflicts, and make the recurring event (
http://sudoroom.org/wp-admin). Let me know if you need any help with that!
Jenny
http://jennyryan.nethttp://thepyre.orghttp://thevirtualcampfire.orghttp://technomadic.tumblr.com
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
-Hannah Arendt
"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Morten H. D. Fuglsang <vallebo(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Yes. Yesterday was awesome and I am all in favor of making this a regular
> thing. Suggested times work well for me, albeit I have no clue about
> scheduling conflicts in terms of other things.
> Having it split into two segments seem to make sense. Let's try it out
> and see what happens :)
>
> Make a great day,
> Morten H. D. Fuglsang
> US: +1 415 799 6931 // skype: FlyvendeHest
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM, rusty lindgren <rustylindgren(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I wish I had more time, or I would have stayed and learned some arduino
>> stuffz.
>>
>> Good work sudo peepz!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> We had a good session last night, with a mushroom environmental control
>>> system and an RGB color mixer both advancing to the next operational stage,
>>> a beer brewing robot gaining a good amount of ground on its grainy prey,
>>> and a wood gasifier control system not getting much attention at all as the
>>> maker was having such a good time helping others out and generally talking
>>> shop. Also had a first-time solderer successfully execute a cut-and-solder
>>> list on some heavy amperage connections, learned how to google our
>>> debugging problems into submission, extolled the virtues of power
>>> transistor arrays, and determined experimentally that it probably isn't a
>>> good idea to put a glass jar of process water in a bench vise. Throw in
>>> some chips and salsa, and a good night was had by all.
>>>
>>> I'd like to make this a recurring thing and build momentum in the cycle
>>> of getting an idea, turning it into a project, building the project, and
>>> coming away with more and better ideas. To facilitate this, we could take
>>> over the newly (?) vacated alternating tuesday meetup spot at sudo room. I
>>> propose we break it up into one night a month for fresh ideas and new
>>> entrants, one night a month for refining and implementing more developed
>>> ideas. Here is what I propose:
>>>
>>> Microcontroller Project Hack Night
>>> @sudo room
>>> March 26 @ 5:30PM - 11PM
>>> April 23 @ 5:30PM - 11PM
>>> May 21 @ 5:30PM - 11PM
>>> "A shared worktime for tackling microcontroller and robotics projects.
>>> Bring that complex project you've been putting off finishing and hunker
>>> down around the communal soldering iron and serial terminal for a
>>> high-productivity, high-spirited build night. Both independent work and
>>> collaboration strongly engouraged, as are snacks and other refreshments."
>>>
>>> Basic Microcontroller Hack Night
>>> @sudo room
>>> April 9 @ 5:30PM - 11PM
>>> May 7 @ 5:30PM - 11PM
>>> "A good night for both beginning and more experienced microcontroller
>>> users. Emphasis is on first principles, trying out new sensors and
>>> actuators, testing out new ideas that haven't yet found a home in a
>>> project, and cracking open black boxes of all sorts for fresh ideas.
>>> Eventually we will have low-cost starter kits available to get beginners
>>> hacking right away."
>>>
>>> Are there any scheduling conflicts? Do people want to meet up more than
>>> twice a month or does this seem like enough to satisfy your need for group
>>> hacking sessions in this area? My theory is that we can always meet more
>>> than this, but scheduling too many (ie weekly) meetups will max out peoples
>>> bandwidth and result in decreased cohesion between attendees. I will also
>>> work on getting this added to the calendar in the near future.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hol
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rusty Lindgren
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
Finding a good time to touch some Open Oakland projects like CKAN and
LocalWiki software development, put together a low-key meetup:
http://sudoroom.org/ai1ec_event/python-meetup/
Looking for facilitators, attendees, participants, supporters, newbs,
nerds, geeks, and all!
// Matt
Please share widely!:
*Jewelry-making and Jewelry Repair*
Join us at Sudo Room this Saturday Mar. 9th at 2PM for a workshop on making
and repairing jewelry. Bring broken and second hand jewelry plus any beads
or other bits you have on hand and we will learn how to take apart old
jewelry to make new creations. We will also have people on hand to help you
repair any broken jewelry. Bring yourself and a friend, we’ll have snacks!
Sudo Room is at 2141 Broadway (entrance on 22nd St., take the elevator
upstairs).
*This workshop is part of the series “Today I Learned,” a series of free
workshops that take place every Saturday at 2PM at Sudo Room, a creative
community and hackerspace in downtown Oakland. Check out the full schedule
at sudoroom.org <http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Today_I_Learned>.*
Hey all,
The Community Democracy Project http://communitydemocracyproject.org/ is
hosting a special meeting on Monday March 11th, with at least one (maybe a
few) guest speakers.
Please be advised that we will be using more of the room and producing more
sound (as well as requiring a bit more quiet during presentation(s). We
have coordinated with the JavaScript meetup and plan to follow up with the
Public School as a heads-up. More info:
*What*: Community building + demystifying the budget + CDP campaign 101
*Meet other CDP supporters and volunteers
*"Oakland Budget 101" training from local budget experts and activists
*Hear from other groups working toward local economic justice
*Training on talking about the campaign, mobilizing others
*When*: Monday, March 11. Starts promptly at 6:30, ends by 9.
// Matt
(Matthew: I see your comment was posted to me but not posted to list, so
I've redacted it from this posting to the list, which is in reply to
you. If you want to post your comment to the list, feel free. Everyone
else: it wasn't a scathing criticism or something scandalous, in fact I
think Matthew may have wanted to post it to list but didn't hit Reply
All. That said, it's up to him.)
The surveillance ecosystem is already enormous, and the vast majority is
in the private sector.
General rule: "Dissipative structures form ecosystems around
entropy-gradients." Organisms are dissipative structures; work is
energy-conversion. This explains much of human social behavior as well
as physical ecosystem behavior.
For example people want music and they're willing to work hard (convert
energy) to get it. Energy conversion produces an entropy gradient. The
music industry middlemen (RIAA) insert themselves into the path between
sources & sinks (artists & audiences, and that relationship is two-way)
to tap as much energy out of this process as possible, in the form of
money. Illegal file downloaders as well as self-produced bands who use
Creative Commons or Copyleft, are seen by the music industry as
short-circuits in the system.
Consumer behavior in general is an enormous energy source (money
source), and the goal of capitalism is ultimately to surround every
consumer with the equivalent of a Dyson sphere to capture as much of
their work output as possible. The modern surveillance ecosystem is all
about "predicting and controlling" individual behavior, toward that end.
So, per Matthew, one way to counter this is to set up a countervailing
ecosystem, with entropy gradients tilted in such a manner as to produce
incentives to fight back against the surveillance.
As for defending privacy: privacy is equivalent to free speech. As a
lawyer told us when I was working on "crypto for the masses" in the
early 1980s, the right to freedom of speech necessarily includes the
right to choose your audience. Today we commonly use the term "chilling
effect" to refer to what happens when you can't choose your audience,
e.g. when your boss and the credit bureaux etc. are likely to be
watching you on "social" networks.
It's been said more than once, that you can tell when someone's boss is
watching them on Facebook: all of a sudden their comments go totally
bland (not that any of us should be using Facebook unless we're
deliberately using it as a publicity tool for political or other
campaigns). That's the chilling effect in action. And if DARPA and
Google have their way, where everyone's every conversation, private and
in-person included, is recorded and archived and made searchable, the
chill will be so total that it will make life in East Germany under the
Stasi look like a picnic by comparison.
Knowledge is power: when THEY know all about YOU, but you know nothing
about them, who has the power?
As the old song said, "Getting to know you / getting to know all about
you..."
Not to mention, "He sees you when you're sleeping / he knows when you're
awake. / He knows if you've been bad or good / so be good for (getting
lots of presents) sake!"
Going back thousands of years, societies envisioned deities as concerned
with individual "moral behavior" (i.e. sex) as a way of strengthening
tribal cohesion. Western cultures in particular evolved with the very
strong sense that their deities were keeping a close watch over them.
This gave people a sense of comfort and protection.
Today as agnosticism, atheism, and various forms of transpersonal
beliefs (in effect religion without personalized deities) are on the
rise in the geek sector, the sense of comfort from "being watched over"
has transplanted itself from the deity to the surveillance
superstructure. Many people are secretly fond of the idea that Big
Google is reading every word they write, listening to every phone call
they make, and following them around. This is nothing more than a new
deity taking the place of the old one: "someone big who watches over us."
It seems to me that a necessary part of the evolution of rational people
away from the need for personalized deities, is to get away from the
need for the "comfort" of being watched over. Individuals who are
rational self-aware autonomous moral actors have no need of being
watched over by anything other than our own consciences.
-G.
=====
On 13-03-05-Tue 2:43 PM, Matthew D. Howell wrote:
(Comment was sent to me in private email, not to the list, so if Matthew
wishes he can repost it to the list.)
=====
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>> Re. Anthony, Rachel, Matthew, re "masking audio."
>>
>> That was the first thing I tried when I found out about NSA's voice
>> recognition back in 1980 (if I recall correctly it was the October 1980
>> issue of _The Progressive_ that referred to the HARVEST program, keyword
>> rec and voice rec, and some stuff in a British paper or magazine also, I
>> may still have copies around).
>>
>> The idea was that instead of using a voice scrambler or crypto (which
>> required a device at each end of a conversation), voice rec could be
>> defeated from one end of a phone call by saturating the channel with
>> just enough noise. What killed that idea was the fact that long
>> distance telephony used T-carrier that split up the conversation into
>> two different speech paths between telco central offices (e.g. me to
>> you, you to me). So a device would still be needed at both ends, and
>> one may as well just use a scrambler. That led me down the trail to
>> details about scramblers (bottom line, analog scramblers aren't any
>> good) and ultimately to cryptography by 1982 - 1983.
>>
>> Re. "every person's voice has a distinct signature that can be
>> recognized...", yes, thus voiceprint recognition, which was 99.6%
>> accurate in 1960 according to an article in _Telephony_ magazine at the
>> time (I may still have that around also). Fast-forward to today at the
>> speed of Moore's law, and you can be quite sure that voiceprint
>> recognition is used for tracking.
>>
>> This is one of the things I find most pernicious about the decline in
>> the use of landlines and the rise in the number of people with "mobile
>> only": A landline enables you to design, build, connect, and use any
>> hardware you choose, including digital voice crypto devices, and
>> including computers running digital voice crypto. And with a landline
>> phone, when the receiver is on the hook, the microphone is physically
>> disconnected by the hookswitch, a visible set of switch contacts inside
>> the phone.
>>
>> Mobile devices are sealed black boxes, the ultimate revenge against
>> phone phreaks & phone hackers, where you have no final control over
>> what's in the black box. Just like the bad old days of Ma Bell when it
>> was quasi-illegal to connect "foreign attachments" to your home phone
>> line. Even a voice crypto app on a mobile device is questionable at
>> best, because you have no way of knowing if at some level it's being
>> undermined by something else in the device that you can't detect. By
>> analogy, crypto on your laptop, but a keystroke logger hiding between
>> you and the crypto app.
>>
>> The mere possibility of being able to hack the hardware provides more
>> security than any sealed box, and best of all is when you can design &
>> build your own hardware, such as when people build their own desktop
>> machines from components.
>>
>> Anyway, I agree with Rachel & Matthew that audio masking isn't
>> sufficient because it can be undone by the watchers. It may have to do
>> in some situations, but it would be better to design more "aggressive"
>> personal defense tech such as wearable "resonant audio cannons" or
>> something else.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>>
>> On 13-03-05-Tue 11:21 AM, Matthew D. Howell wrote:
>>> @Rachel The state of the technology for recognizing and separating
>>> patterns in audio is advanced enough to overcome that sort of thing.
>>> Every person's voice has a distinct signature that can be recognized.
>>> I would venture a guess that some kind of encrypted digital signal
>>> transmission would be the best way to keep any sonic communication
>>> private in the most extreme of situations. (most interested party with
>>> the best technology at their disposal)
>>> – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – >8
>>> /V\ /-\ + + |–| ø \/\/ ∂ £ £
>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>>> Matthew D. Howell
>>> misterinterrupt, tHe M4d swiTcH, the RuinMechanic
>>> cell: (617) 755-1481
>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
>>> <rachelyra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't it need to be non-commercially available music, so they couldn't
>>>> just find the audio data of the track, invert its wave, and cancel it out of
>>>> the recording?
>>>>
>>>> CACOPHONY FOR THE REVOLUTION!
>>>>
>>>> mediumreality.com
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 5, 2013 10:23 AM, "Steve Berl" <steveberl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You could carry a boombox around playing loud music where ever you go.
>>>>> Perhaps this would be the end of earbuds. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> People have rendered surveillance cameras useless with very bright IR
>>>>>> LEDs in their fields of view.
>>>>>> Could something similar be done for sound recording devices?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2013 6:17 AM, "Anon195714" <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yo's-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something I forgot to add re. DARPA's desire for universal recording of
>>>>>>> face-to-face conversations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the ideal device for doing all that recording?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How'bout something you wear? How'bout something that "everyone" wears?,
>>>>>>> or even a significant fraction of "everyone"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like maybe Google Glasses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Always on, camera and mic always "connected" to "the cloud." Orwell's
>>>>>>> telescreen gone mobile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone who wears them will become, in effect, _unpaid surveillance
>>>>>>> drones_ watching their family and friends, not from up in the sky, but
>>>>>>> from up close where every word can be heard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some will say "oh, there's no stopping technology." People said that
>>>>>>> about the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. But public outcry led
>>>>>>> first to treaties and then to progressive degrees of nuclear
>>>>>>> disarmament. We haven't used that technology since it was first used in
>>>>>>> WW2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can stop pernicious tech if we choose. We can refuse, we can
>>>>>>> withdraw consent, we do not have to press the Buy button.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technology should liberate and empower people. "Conveniences with a few
>>>>>>> strings attached" are not liberation, they're puppet-strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's all about control: technology that you can control, vs. technology
>>>>>>> that can control you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -G.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13-03-05-Tue 1:50 AM, Anon195714 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yo's-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This just in:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "DARPA wants to make [voice recognition/transcription] systems so
>>>>>>>> accurate, you’ll be able to easily record, transcribe and recall all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> conversations you ever have. ... Imagine living in a world where every
>>>>>>>> errant utterance you make is preserved forever. ... DARPA [awarded
>>>>>>>> U.Texas comp sci researcher Matt Lease]... $300,000... over two years
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> study the new project, called “Blending Crowdsourcing with Automation
>>>>>>>> for Fast, Cheap, and Accurate Analysis of Spontaneous Speech.”"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The idea is that business meetings or even conversations with your
>>>>>>>> friends and family could be stored in archives and easily searched.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> stored recordings could be held in servers, owned either by
>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>> or their employers. ... The answer, Lease says, is in widespread use
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> recording technologies like smartphones, cameras and audio
>>>>>>>> recorders...
>>>>>>>> [A] memorandum from the Congressional Research Service described [an
>>>>>>>> earlier DARPA project of this type known as] EARS, as focusing on
>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>> picked up from broadcasts and telephone conversations, “as well as
>>>>>>>> extract clues about the identity of speakers” for “the military,
>>>>>>>> intelligence and law enforcement communities.”"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/darpa-speech/ (Yes, "real
>>>>>>>> geeks
>>>>>>>> don't read Wired," but nonetheless its news pages are useful for
>>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>> a finger on the pulse of Big Brother and his corporate Brethren.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In short:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DARPA is researching the means by which every conversation you have,
>>>>>>>> in-person, whether at work or with family or friends, gets picked up
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> the mic in your smartphone or other portable device, and stored on a
>>>>>>>> server, where DARPA's algorithms and human editors turn all of it into
>>>>>>>> fast-searchable text, that could be used by your employer, the
>>>>>>>> military,
>>>>>>>> law enforcement, and intel agencies. Presumably the credit bureaus,
>>>>>>>> insurance companies, and financial institutions will want "in" on the
>>>>>>>> data as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now connect that with this, about cell-site tracking and call detail
>>>>>>>> records:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The government maintained [that] Americans have no expectation of
>>>>>>>> privacy of such cell-site records [call detail records or CDR] because
>>>>>>>> they are in the possession of a third party — the mobile phone
>>>>>>>> companies."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/gps-drug-dealer-retrial/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key point is that the gov's current position is that data stored
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> a third party's servers have "no expectation of privacy." What begins
>>>>>>>> with CDR will eventually include voicemail messages stored on the
>>>>>>>> mobile
>>>>>>>> phone companies' servers, and then eventually all of your live
>>>>>>>> in-person
>>>>>>>> conversations that are stored "in the cloud."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." Mark my words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile people keep using gmail and Google Voice, and smartphones
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> which they can't remove the batteries. Because nothing is more
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>> than "convenience," right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a character in a sci-fi piece I wrote in the mid-1980s said, "Why
>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>> a person in prison, when you can put prison in the person instead?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -G.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -steve
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
Hey Sudoers, Just wanted to let everyone know that artist Leo
Villareal<http://www.villareal.net/>'s
new project The Bay Lights <http://thebaylights.org/> will debut tonight at
9pm with a live webcast starting at 8:30.
'The Bay Lights' is turning the Bay Bridge into massive art. 25,000 LEDs,
1.8 miles wide and 500' high.
Villareal's is also the artist behind
'Multiverse<http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/villarealinfo.shtm>'
which utilizes 41,000 LEDs and is shown at the National Gallery of Art in
Washington D.C.
Cheers,
Ray - the Emperor of Ice Cream