On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Anon195714 <
anon195714@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Case in point of the cultural item I wrote about yesterday in this
> thread, that most hackers are more interested in hacking than in
> political/administrative tasks.
>
> Which to my mind supports the case for a representative structure rather
> than trying to engage everyone in tasks that many will find are tedious
> and even incomprehensible. Those who have the expertise and the frame
> of mind to take on issues such as revisions of bylaws and so on, should
> be encouraged and formally recognized to do so.
>
> Re."rules": There's rules and there's rules, and there's agreements
> among consenting adults.
>
> Nobody here would think it amusing to try to hack a rule that forbids
> physical aggression against others, e.g. "Hmm, if I just discretely push
> someone so they fall down, and then claim it was an accident, can I tie
> up the group with a six-hour meeting about this and still end up keeping
> my membership?" Or rather, it would be a paradigm case of the most
> obnoxious kind of trolling.
>
> Same case about serving alcohol to people under 21 who might be at
> events. That carries the risk of the place getting shut down or
> otherwise subjected to external legal sanctions.
>
> In the end, we're self-governing, so the "rules" we make are _agreements
> among consenting adults_.
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
> On 13-03-19-Tue 2:28 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
>> Look, here's the problem with deliberating long hours over bureaucracy
>> in a hacker organization:
>> Greetings lovelies,
>>
>> If I may step in with some perspective based on about a decade of
>> hanging out in hacker groups...
>>
>> Hackers' primary M.O. is GETTING AROUND RULES.
>>
>> So, if you, on an individual level, enjoy making up rules and getting
>> semantics perfect, you should do that... as a project... on your own
>> time.
>>
>> Because I guarantee you that *at least* those 11 people who abstained
>> last week, plus several more I'm sure, were sitting there completely
>> disengaged from that special interest project, because it is not
>> fundamentally interesting.
>>
>> Why is it not interesting? Well, for something to be interesting, it
>> has to feel as though it actually affects you.
>>
>> If you believe that rules are made for getting-around, then of what
>> interest is it, really, what the content of those rules actually is?
>>
>> I can make some strong arguments as to why front-loading your
>> rules-making in a hacker culture is a waste of time at best, and
>> dangerous at worst. (One example: some of the people who are most
>> interested in the letter of the law turn out to be the most interested
>> in twisting it to their own ends.)
>>
>> But to be honest, I'd rather get back to hacking.
>>
>> I'll see some of you tonight for sudo room radio stuff. Many of you I
>> will not see for radio stuff, because it may not be of interest. :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Naomi
>>
>>
>>
>