Re: [sudo-discuss] Michael Orange - film events - Battle for Brooklyn - any sudo members interested in an intro?

I'm not sure how people feel about this, but just throwing out there the idea of anonymizing senders on the list archives, like whoever starts the thread is user1, first reply user2, etc. We would need to strip out email addresses for this to be effective but people could still sign their names for posterity. this brings up a question regarding the terrain between openness and anonymity - how do we encourage people to open up to the community while having the community open to the world? there are some things that i put on some parts of the web that i would never want to go to others. how open do we want the archives? does it matter to those hoping to ctrl+v, who says what? or would an anonymized version be sufficient? or maybe we could add a non-archived sudo discuss list for conscientious objectors? i don't have any strong feelings one way or the other but I would like to see everybody be accommodated. attached below is an excerpt from the text of the sign-up page for sudo-discuss, which along with the link sent out on each email received should be clear enough notification that this is all being stored on a webpage somewhere. i concur with not removing any content from the archives, but would like to open the question of whether having personally identifying information is required as part of the intended ctrl-v process which the archives are intended to facilitate. To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the sudo-discuss Archives. Apr 11, 2013 10:58:44 AM, rachelyra(a)gmail.com wrote: At the bottom of every email to this list is a link to 'listinfo' which opens with an archive of every post to the list.  If the boilerplate seems unclear to people we can talk about changing it but I categorically object to removing anything from the archive. Transparency and openness are part of our core values, archiving emails is very standard, the listinfo page makes it clear that this is done using completely standard language, and if anyone wishes to have their statements go unattributed they are welcome to not enter them into the Internet, or to use a pseudonym. R. On Apr 11, 2013 10:53 AM, "Anon195714" anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: Let's be really clear about this:  This is the explicit language in the sign-up document: "Subscribing to sudo-discuss Subscribe to sudo-discuss by filling out the following form. You will be sent email requesting confirmation, to prevent others from gratuitously subscribing you. This is a private list, which means that the list of members is not available to non-members." "THIS IS A PRIVATE LIST, WHICH MEANS THAT THE LIST OF MEMBERS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO NON MEMBERS." That's a representation of a material fact.  And the link to the archive says NOTHING about that archive being anything that would violate or contradict the language I quoted above: no disclosure, no nothing. Blatant misrepresentation.  "May need to be doing a better job" is the understatement of the year. The answer is, I'm going to hold SudoRoom to the terms & conditions I signed, and that material is going to be taken down immediately until such time as anything I've posted in it can be removed from any publicly searchable content.  This is not optional, any more than free repair under warranty is optional, or the absence of horsemeat in "100% beef frankfurters" is optional.  I'm holding SudoRoom to its stated language.  -G. ====== On 13-04-11-Thu 10:42 AM, Marina Kukso wrote: hi george, i'm very sorry that you feel that you did not consent to having this information public. this list has been publicly archived since it began and i think that we've tried to make that clear (although it seems that we may need to be doing a better job!). unfortunately i'm not sure to what extent the "welcome to sudo-discuss list" email that new list members receive includes information about content being publicly archived (could someone help with this?), but perhaps we may need to make this more explicit in that letter. for additional background on why we made the decision to publicly archive contents, the idea is not necessarily to promote "transparency and openness" as a matter of principle only, but because part of what we wanted to do with sudo room is to make our history as easy for others to use as possible so that others who are starting and running hackerspaces can learn from our experience and discussion. in other words, to facilitate ctrl-c/ctrl-v of hackerspaces around the world. - marina On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Anon195714 anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: Right, and when you slip LSD into the fruit punch at a party and don't tell anyone, do you justify that by saying you're trying to encourage enlightenment?   Who needs informed consent anyway, right?  Hey, who needs consent of any kind?  Sorry yo, that don't go.  It's NON CONSENSUAL, like seducing someone and failing to disclose to them that you have STDs.  It's a trust-break in a big way.  I'm asserting my right to put this on the meeting agenda for next Wednesday, and pull in any record of anything I signed that contained TOS. Let me be really clear about this:  I'm as serious as a fucking heart attack about this, and anyone who thinks it's a joke is fucking sick.  This "open and transparent" stuff is starting to become a chant fit for a cult, that short-circuits reason and critical thinking.  In reality it's a house of one-way mirrors foisted by the powerful on the masses to enable "prediction and control" down to the level of the individual. Enough was enough long ago, just like muggings and the rest of it. -G. ===== On 13-04-11-Thu 10:07 AM, mattsenate(a)gmail.com wrote: public in an effort to remain as transparent and open as possible. This is a blessing and a burden. We should be mindful of the scope of our language and interested in maintaining private conversation off the list. Additionally, if you seek a lot of privacy, I don't recommend communicating over the internet if it can be helped. // Matt ----- Reply message ----- From: "Tracy Jacobs" To: "Romy Ilano" Cc: "sudo-discuss" Subject: [sudo-discuss] Michael Orange - film events - Battle for Brooklyn - any sudo members interested in an intro? Date: Thu, Apr 11, 2013 9:54 AM Sudoers, Why does our discussion list have to be published on the internet?  I don't personally want  it to be that public.  Who decided it should be done that way, and is there another option?   Tracy On Apr 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Romy Ilano romy(a)snowyla.com wrote: Hey  here is one of the film events that Michael Orange from top 10 social is presenting. https://www.facebook.com/events/563556023675662/?notif_t=plan_user_invited Michael's also working with the Oakland Library as well,so I'll mention the history wki people from sudoroom are there! this probably isn't necessary for anyone here... but in case one or two people gets the temptation: -- Michael Orange is an all around good guy--please treat him well, minimize over the top business plans, "industry type behavior", and approach him as you would a family member. If we talk to him the wrong way it will be a smear on my reputation and his opinion matters a lot to me. =D _______________________________________________ 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 >_______________________________________________ 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