I +1 juul and senate.

On 23 Jan 2016 12:55 pm, "Torrie Fischer" <tdfischer@hackerbots.net> wrote:

~~consensus decision making~~

I'd give one to Yar

On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 12:53 -0800, Adam wrote:
> To whom should keys be given? How does one define a trustworthy
> member?
>
> I mean I trust Jake, Robb, et al but whom else?
>
> At RIT's hackerspace we gave key cards to the people who were
> responsible
> for fixing the broken ship.
> On 23 Jan 2016 10:51 am, "Torrie Fischer" <tdfischer@hackerbots.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Notes are cool and all but they don't work too well if people just
> > ignore them.
> >
> > Folks seem to already be ignoring this mailing list and other
> > cultural
> > forces that request the door be kept close.
> >
> > I'm in favor of rekeying the lock and making sure that whoever
> > gives
> > out the new keys has a stern conversation with keyholders about
> > this
> > sort of thing.
> >
> > On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 09:53 -0800, danarauz@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Oh Door:
> > >
> > > Many times I have seen the door ajar, mostly at night, and when I
> > > have
> > > tried to closed it some folks standing outside, usually smoking,
> > > had
> > > ask me
> > > to leave it like that.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, when events are taking place I have noticed
> > > that
> > > the
> > > door its intentionally kept open to guide the newcomers that it
> > > is
> > > the
> > > entrance and they don't have to bother by ringing the bell, etc.
> > >
> > > I don't have the solution to the whole door issue, but at least,
> > > I
> > > suggest,
> > > we should have a note in the inside stating to keep it closed at
> > > all
> > > times,
> > > of course, with exceptions when events are taking place.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Torrie Fischer <
> > > tdfischer@hackerbots.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thats a solution, though I've seen that sort of thing defeated
> > > > with
> > > > people just wedging the door open or something.
> > > >
> > > > Not to say that doing that is a fruitless endeavor but it can't
> > > > be
> > > > the
> > > > only thing done.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 03:24 -0800, Charley Sheets wrote:
> > > > > While I agree that re-keying may be necessary, and
> > > > > restricting
> > > > > key
> > > > > distribution is prudent, I wonder if it might also be useful
> > > > > to
> > > > > investigate different door hardware. It seems unintuitive to
> > > > > me
> > > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > would always be necessary to re-lock the door after unlocking
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would imagine there must be door hardware that allows for
> > > > > only
> > > > > a
> > > > > momentary unlocking action, eliminating the need to re-lock
> > > > > the
> > > > > door.
> > > > > Has anything like that been investigated? Is there some
> > > > > nuance of
> > > > > doors
> > > > > that I'm just not understanding?
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > sudo-discuss mailing list
> > > > > sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
> > > > > https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > discuss mailing list
> > > > discuss@lists.omnicommons.org
> > > > https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sudo-discuss mailing list
> > sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
> > https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss