[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jacob at appelbaum.net
Thu Nov 14 19:40:45 UTC 2013
I was disheartened to see the following:
> B. We discussed Tom's proposal to make the list of members public. We
> agreed the following:
> "It shall not a secret whether a person is Member of Noisebridge. It shall
> be the responsibility of each member to identify themself as a member by
> adding the Category:Members to their wiki user page. Until a Member so
> identifies, they shall not be entitled to any privilege of Noisebridge
> Membership. Likewise, if a member is on Membership/Hiatus, they must
> indicate this by adding the Category:Hiatus to their wiki user page; this
> method of so identifying shall replace any other notification requirement
> for going on and coming off hiatus. Although it shall generally be a
> responsibility shared by all members to ensure that this category of
> identification is used correctly, in cases where its use is disputed,
> Noisebridge's secretary shall be the final arbiter."
It has never been a secret that a person is a member of Noisebridge -
rather if someone wishes to identify as such, it is their choice. The
membership binder and the treasurer are the final arbiter of any
statements made by anyone, of course.
With that said - the above is rather sad but the following for next week
is really sad:
> A. "As a result of our prior conversation, we collectively propose: If a
> member has not identified themself as such by adding the Category:Members
> to their wiki user page by $DATE, they shall no longer be a member of
I object and request a proxy at the next meeting to block this in the
Members of Noisebridge have a right to privacy and they should have a
right to decide if they disclose their affiliation with Noisebridge.
This robs them of that ability in a time when we face massive
persecution from both corporate and state actors.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss