sudo-discuss

sudo-discuss@sudoroom.org

14 participants
7248 discussions

by Eddan Katz

I agree in this particular case and in fact admit to unintentionally participating in stifling a straw poll because my comment was understood as an objection. I was merely trying to introduce a note of caution into asking who would be willing to pay for something and how much, given how some people could really be turned off by that kind of peer pressure, however well-meaning. I do however hesitate to be absolute about it, or unconditional. Bad faith consensus blocking has been discussed at Sudo Room many times, and I would hope that the process we go with could not be exploited as such. sent from eddan.com On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yea, totally, straw polls should be friction free. This would have saved like 15-30 minutes of talking about nothing yesterday. > > -Jehan > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Andrew <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com> wrote: > I totally agree. > > In addition, I think that there should be some rules around making official proposals, for example that there must reasonable time to bring up clarifying questions and to make comments before bringing it to an official vote. There by making a clear distinction between sraw poll and proposals. > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I was frustrated last night by the repeated suppresion of straw polls, and meta-processing around whether members should even be able to call for a straw poll about specific things. > > I would like to propose that we add to the compact that any meeting participant, when they are on stack, is unconditionally allowed to call for a straw poll. The other participants can then either yea, nay, or abstain. I think this will make the process more smooth. > > -jehan > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > > > -- > ------- > Andrew Lowe > Cell: 831-332-2507 > http://roshambomedia.com > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

11 years, 11 months

Re: [sudo-discuss] Proposed changes to the Conflict Resolution Process

by Eddan Katz

How about Safe Space Steward? Just to keep the process moving, not to judge - as i understand Anthony's suggestion. Such a person would keep issues from escalating to the whole group, and would bring clarity to when it would be appropriate to move from mediation stage to group conflict resolution due to inability to resolve informally. It was my impression that a big chunk of the controversy last night was whether or not alternative solutions were exhausted. If that transition is made more transparent and effective with a 'buck-stops-here' Safe Space Steward functionary position, I imagine people would feel more confident in the process. This person could also make sure that something is done rather than lingering (intentionally or not) when the group does make a decision. I also am in favor of figuring out ways to implement the safe space framework embedded in the kernel of our social norms. Maintaining level-headed discussion on the topic, as has been practiced on this list so far from my perspective, also seems worth preserving somehow structurally. Yardena's draft does seem like a great place to start, as was mentioned again at the meeting last night. sent from eddan.com On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The reason for this is that I think the process is failing not in its substance but just by being extremely disorganized, which has led to the flaws you sought to correct, such as poor communication, confusion about the facts, speculatively assuming intentions and motivations and consent from indirect evidence, gossiping around key questions rather than seeking clear answers from the relevant parties. > Thus there should be someone on point for organizing the process, just as there are for meetings and finances. > > On Jan 24, 2013 4:12 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am not suggesting that there be a specialized mediation group or designated mediator, rather that there be someone responsible for gathering all relevant information about the process together and communicating it to the mediator and conflicting parties, and group if needed, and keeping the process on track. > > On Jan 24, 2013 4:01 PM, "Andrew" <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com> wrote: > Jehan: putting the situation with Timon aside, if there is good documentation about the steps that have been taken to reach out to both parties, and diligent information gathering has taken place and is documented, then the group should have enough information to the unfortunate step of making a decision on how to proceed without one of the parties present or participating. > > Talking about the situation with Timon in particular, this was not done. Hence the jab at me not being at the last two meetings. I should not have to have been at the last two meetings to meaningfully participate in a conflict resolution that has gotten to the point of needing group intervention. As a specific example I was a singular third party witness to one on the incidents in question, while it is partly my fault for not coming forward with my perspective early in the process, at no time was the conflict well defined enough and the process working enough for me to feel comfortable providing my point of view. I'm also concerned that at no time did either party reach out to me to provide more information. > > Anthony: I disagree. every conflict is unique and there is no way that a specialized mediation group can provide a balanced view on all conflicts. However I do think that it's import to establish regular education sessions around deescalation and conflict resolution. > > --Andrew > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All of this is excellent and because for the most part these things were are conspicuously lacking, I would like to propose the creation of an additional office to be responsible for doing all these things, including as well stewarding the mediator and conflicting parties through the resolution process, documenting clearly and concisely that this is done and collecting together all relevant communications, and informing relevant parties at the appropriate steps in the process including the whole group when appropriate. Additionally this officeholder would co-facilitate with the facilitator during whole-group conflict resolution, prepare a written background brief for the whole group with all relevant documentation, and answer points of information that come up. > I propose to call this the office of the Judge Advocate General, and were it to be created, I would volunteer for it. > > On Jan 24, 2013 2:54 PM, "Andrew" <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This is kind of a brain dump about our conflict resolution process. The proposal is that the following ideas be placed in to the Articles of Association under conflict resolution or in a addendum that deals specifically with conflicts. Mainly I'd just like to get the meta conversation started with the goal of making the sudo room the conflict resolution process go smoother. > > 1. All steps that have been taken in resolution to a specific conflict should be documented. Beginning with a full account of complaints (if any). > > 2. While we can't guarantee objectivity it is important that discussions during conflict resolution revolve around problems and facts and not people and assumptions. > > 3. State explicitly that the goal of conflict resolution is to build mutual respect and understanding. Every step in the process is taken with this goal in mind. > > I would also propose that while every conflict is unique, the following basic steps are strongly suggested as a framework to resolution whether with a mediator, between individuals, or if the group needs to intervene: > > Set The Scene: Establish the goals and values surrounding conflict resolution at Sudo Room. > > Gather Information: Gather facts about the situation from both sides and any third parties who have relevant information. Identify the issues. Listen. > > Brain Storm Solutions: Both parties are given a chance to come up with possible solutions to the defined problems. > > Negotiate Solutions: Come to a win-win solution that takes in to account the interests of both parties. If this is not possible the group must intervene and vote on a possible solution brought up in the brain storming process based on the voting schema already in the Articles of Association. > > > Thanks for reading, > Andrew > > > -- > ------- > Andrew Lowe > Cell: 831-332-2507 > http://roshambomedia.com > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > > > -- > ------- > Andrew Lowe > Cell: 831-332-2507 > http://roshambomedia.com > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

11 years, 11 months

Re: [sudo-discuss] Freedom of Information requests

by Eddan Katz

I would be interested in learning more about discussions within municipal leadership about previous attempts to introduce Open WiFi to Oakland. On Jan 21, 2013, at 12:06 PM, mark burdett <mark(a)510pen.org> wrote: > Hi, if anyone is interested in making a Freedom of Information request to a local/state/federal government agency, I have some surplus credits on https://www.muckrock.com/ - a website which makes it pretty easy to send and track FOI requests online. Just email me off-list and I can submit a request for you. > > Maybe could be useful for Oakland Wiki or other projects folks are working on? > > Note, sometimes agencies refuse to send documents and you have to file a lawsuit (but hey, you might win a million dollars 10 years later), or they want to charge exorbitant fees for documents - e.g. https://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_files/Ltr_-_1-17-13.pdf - but sometimes you can get what you're looking for free of charge.. > > --mark B. > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

11 years, 11 months

Re: [sudo-discuss] Farm Hack - sudo chapter? :)

by Eddan Katz

+1 (minus the growing up on a farm part) On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Michael Scroggins <michaeljscroggins(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I grew up on a farm, so maybe this is nostalgia speaking, but I am also interested. > > Anthony Di Franco wrote: >> >> I met a farmhack person at a work event Monday evening (I work at Clearbon which is Slow Money and Slow Food affiliated) and she suggested upon hearing about sudo room that sudo room have a look. And several of us are of the Open Source Ecology (.org) bent. >> >> So, yes. >> >> On Jan 24, 2013 10:24 AM, "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> this seems relevant to the interests of our community! >> >> http://www.youngfarmers.org/practical/farm-hack/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

11 years, 11 months

Re: [sudo-discuss] Visiting from Chicago 1/26-1/29, making pick and place machine

by Eddan Katz

Hi Jeff - I'll be around and would be interested in hearing about what you guys are up to in Chicago. Would you be cool with giving a demo or informal talk while you're out here? sent from eddan.com On Jan 19, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Jeff McAlvay <jmcalvay(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I’m working on an open hardware, open software circuit board assembly machine (a pick and place) for DIYers with some folks at Chicago’s Pumping Station: One hackerspace. > > I’m going to be in the Bay Area for an electronics design conference 1/26-1/29. While I'm in town, I would like to get input on the machine, see your space, and meet folks doing automated manufacturing projects. > > Let me know if you want to meet up and what time would be best to stop by the space. > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

11 years, 11 months

Sudoroom, Do you want a working color Laser network printer ?

by Jesper Jurcenoks

Hi Sudoroom. I am on my way downtown tonight to drop off some promised Rackservers. We have a Konica Minolta Network Color Laser printer with Toner, only problem with it is that rubber on the paper pickup is getting old, so it won't always pickup a new sheet of paper. Are you interested ? Will there be someone in the sudo room tonight to receive the Unuser rack-servers ? -- Jesper "JJ" Jurcenoks Don't print this email - Save a tree.

11 years, 11 months

Friday Filosophy, 1/18; The Imperative of Responsibility

by Eddan Katz

Dear Sudo folk - A reminder that Friday Filosophy will start at noon again today at Sudo Room. This week we’ll be talking about the Imperative of Responsibility. The filo dough entree today will again be Spanakopita from Bacheeso's on Grand (http://www.bacheesos.net/). Last week we focused on how we would go about describing the shift from the industrial economy to the knowledge economy. We started by watching the "Fear the Boom and Bust" video clip - a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem, at http://youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk. We also read an excerpt (included at the bottom) from Joel Mokyr - The Gifts of Athena. We ended with a pretty useful question - How do we know, or rather how should we demonstrate, that openness is in itself good? We consistently assume that open means good, but it’s actually used as descriptive of engineering principles and even of entire systems, but without any explicit sort of moral claim. Though we didn’t arrive at a confident answer at the time, we were able to conclude though that best practices for Sudo Room initiatives would be at the intersection of -- (1) openness as a more efficient means of developing technology; and (2) openness in terms of transparency for democratic reasons. To start us off somewhere on the relationship between openness and ethics, I’ve suggested below an excerpt from Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility. We can of course, as is now traditional, go with whatever else people want to talk about as well. -sent from eddan.com --- Friday Filosophy, 1/18; The Imperative of Responsibility Knowledge, under these circumstances, becomes a prime duty beyond anything claimed for it heretofore, and the knowledge must be commensurate with the causal scale of our action. The fact that it cannot really be thus commensurate, that is, that the predictive knowledge falls behind the technical knowledge that nourishes our power to act, itself assumes ethical importance. The gap between the ability to foretell and the power to act creates a novel moral problem. With the latter so superior to the former, recognition of ignorance becomes the obverse of the duty to know and thus part of the ethics that must govern the evermore necessary self-policing of our outsized might. No previous ethics had to consider the global condition of human life and the far-off future, even existence, of the race. These now being an issue demands, in brief, a new conception of duties and rights, for which previous ethics and metaphysics provide not even the principles, let alone a ready doctrine. [1. The Altered Nature of Human Action; III. The New Dimensions of Responsibility; (2) The New Role of Knowledge in Morality] Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (1984). [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Imperative_of_Responsibility.html?i…] --- Friday Filosophy, 1/11; Post-Industrial Society How should we think of resistance to new knowledge? Knowledge systems are self-organizing systems that in many ways can be thought of in evolutionary terms. The idea of self-organizing decentralized systems, or "catallaxy" as Hayek has called it, is one of the most powerful and influential ideas of the modern age ... Outside economics, self-organizing systems appear throughout our social system. Language, for instance, is such a system, as are science, technology, the arts, manners, and so on. These systems are all information systems that are organized in a particular fashion. They are, in effect, conventions, and as such self-replicating. Conventions are not chosen; they evolve (Sugden, 1989). Ex ante, an infinite number of ways of organizing the information can be imagined, but once the system settles on a Nash equilibrium, certain rules are observed that give the system its coherence. Ideally we would like it to be an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) in which no single individual or knowledge systems, they do change, although it is possible for such systems to lapse eventually into complete stasis. Joel Mokyr - The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (2002), pg. 221 [http://books.google.com/books?id=ivmaEn7vTT0C&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=%22how+…]

11 years, 11 months

Goldrush Operations Research Pod (GORP)

by Eddan Katz

Dear Sudo folk - In anticipation of the Oakland Wiki Edit-a-thon this Sunday -- 12-1p: Brown Couch Cafe noontime meet-n-greet 1-5p: Oakland History Room, 2nd floor of Oakland Public Library (main branch) -- eddan.com is pleased to announce the first meeting of the Goldrush Operations Research Pod (GORP), which will take place immediately following the aforementioned event. After the Edit-a-Thon wraps up, those interested in taking part in the exploratory committee to establish GORP will all head on over to Lake Chalet for food, drink, and a great view of Lake Merritt (http://www.thelakechalet.com/), which is about half a block from the Oakland Library. As one possible branch of research focus, I'd like to propose seeking historical evidence of the extent of violence in those early Wild West days of the California Goldrush. If you were to base your knowledge of what it was like then entirely on movies and TV shows, you'd likely conclude that it was a very violent place. You'd think that everyone always felt in danger of being robbed or bullied, that justice was meted out instantaneously by shoot-out, and it would seem like there couldn't have been much time left over for gold mining. Turns out that this period was relatively peaceful, especially during the first year before the hoards came from all over the world. When you think about it, the cost to the miners of forming agreements could not have been so high that it was more economical to compete through fighting than to collaborate and divvy up the spoils. John R. Umbeck, in A Theory of Property Rights: With Application to the California Gold Rush (1981), works through the choices that these gold-miners had in entering into a contract with one another rather than resorting to the use of violence. He breaks down this process of contract formation into 3 closely related, yet logically distinct choices: Individuals must decide whether or not they want to enter into a contract with others. If they decide to form some contractual arrangement, the next decision is what rights or constraints they will place on resource use. Finally, they must agree on how these rights will be distributed or which individuals will be allowed the rights to use and derive income from the resources. He argues that you can actually come to an equilibrium of relative peace when most of everyone's efforts go into productively mining for gold through the prudent administration of property rights. In order to maximize the chance of these optimal conditions, the total amount of mining land would, he concludes, best be divided evenly among competing miners. This is basically the theoretical model supporting the evidence of sharing contracts in the historical analysis of early gold miner agreements. From a wealth-maximizing reasonable person point of view, he suggests that all exclusive rights are ultimately based on the threat or the use of violence. I think there's something sadly true about that. Whenever a group of individuals agrees to some system by which exclusive rights to scarce resources will be rationed, they are implicitly agreeing not to use violence. Even when one excludes the use of weapons, the contract must provide for the use of violence in order to punish any member who does not follow the rules; and it must maintain the rights of members against attacks from non-members. If the group is not willing or able to use violence in either of these two situations, their property rights over resources will be lost to those who are. To clarify - by violence, Umbeck means the labor time allocated to the use of physical force against another miner. So this isn't just about gun fighting and theft, but rather also includes such activity as building walls for protection or even making threats to allocate labor to these uses. For those graphically inclined, the diagram below from his chapter on Violence and Property Rights Contracts might make more sense. Miners X and Y are each willing to allocate AQ/BA labor to exclude other miners from a marginal unit of land. Miner Z, with no land, is willing to use DO/O labor to exclude X or Y from the unit of land. The horizontal axis measures the ratio of land to labor as inputs in the mining process. The vertical axis measures the marginal product of land (∂G/∂h) and labor (∂G/∂L). Ignoring any work-leisure tradeoffs, this individual has a fixed amount of labor (L) that he is willing to allocate to mining in this time period. Suppose ∂G/∂h = AC = 10 gold units; ∂G/∂L = AB - 1 unit. An extra unit of land would increase the miner's wealth by 10 units of gold, while the extra labor unit would increase it by only 1. He would be willing to allocate up to 10 labor units to violence if it would get him an additional unit of land. Equilibrium will only be reached when X, Y, and Z all have the same land/labor ratio, OP. Here, they are each willing to allocate PT/PS labor to violence, so any additional conflict will result in a draw. With OP land and L labor, each miner will be producing ODTP units of gold. sent from eddan.com

11 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

sudo-discuss