[hackerspaces] status of this list

[Matt Joyce]

Firstly Paul Bohm who claims to be running the list.  "Mentally kill filed"
an on going discussion on the list and moderation needs.  Really
demonstrated and abject lack of responsibility and basically let us all know
that he could care less what anyone else thinks.

Secondly and more directly to the point.

"*** From what I've read so far, I see that you and another person are in
favor of pro-active moderation, while the rest are against any form of a
priori censorship. Either, as Paul suggested, you take responsibility for
it, or I guess we should drop the case."

Premature end to an on going discussion that he obviously wants no part of.
Erronous view point regarding the discussion since at least 4 people have
directly voiced concerns regarding the method of discourse on this mailing
list.  Specifically I cite, shardy, eric / druid, myself, and eric michauds
comments regarding why just ignoring people is problematic (That's ignoring
3ric leaving the list entirely).  Also Jens and others were willing
participants in the ongoing discussion that Paul would like to see come to
an end in spite of the progress being made.

Flame bait...

"We're way beyond Johannes' stimulation for political consciousness into
active political action (either way: for or against censorship/moderation,
i.e. "discussion" vs. "conversation")"

a failed attempt to draw a parallel between moderation and censorship (with
a sudden desire to bring an unrelated and explosive topic into the mix).
That's Flamebait.

 Standardization of communication is the very nature of language.  We are
not discussing censorship.  We're discussing a ruleset for standardized
communication of ideas.  No ones ideas are being banned.  We are simply
requesting that communication be kept to a standard that allows for
discussion to continue on the discussion mailing list.   This point has been
covered to death.

Finally , a conclusion drawn from the aether...

". I don't think there's more need to
discuss the matter: you want moderation, you take care of it, otherwise,
just skip it and we resume to something else."

And yes... I would like to see moderation taken care of an I am certain
people are willing to step up to plate to do it.  I would volunteer myself
if not for my very vocal support for the subject.  I feel that may
disqualify me.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:41 PM, webmind <webmind at puscii.nl> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I re-read the mail 3 times, can you please explain to me how this is a
> flame-bait?
> Looks like an honest mail to me.
>
> W.
>
> Matt Joyce wrote:
> > Please stop flame baiting.
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Hellekin O. Wolf (/tmp/lab)
> > <hellekin at hackerspaces.org <mailto:hellekin at hackerspaces.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Thu 2009-05-14 at 19:08:48 -0400, Matt Joyce wrote:
> >     > Simplicity is great.  I don't disagree.  And if "Be excellent to
> >     each other"
> >     > was enough I wouldn't have brought this up as an issue.  I think
> >     we need
> >     > something more, and the past few days are the evidence I would
> >     submit of
> >     > that.  This is a new list and it's important to set the proper
> >     tone early
> >     > on.  We don't need valuable members of the hackerspace community
> >     dropping
> >     > off of the list in frustration.
> >     >
> >     > -Matt
> >     >
> >     *** From what I've read so far, I see that you and another person are
> in
> >     favor of pro-active moderation, while the rest are against any form
> of a
> >     priori censorship. Either, as Paul suggested, you take
> >     responsibility for
> >     it, or I guess we should drop the case.
> >
> >     We're way beyond Johannes' stimulation for political consciousness
> into
> >     active political action (either way: for or against
> >     censorship/moderation,
> >     i.e. "discussion" vs. "conversation"). I don't think there's more
> >     need to
> >     discuss the matter: you want moderation, you take care of it,
> otherwise,
> >     just skip it and we resume to something else.
> >
> >     My €.02. General opinion being along the way of towo and webmind et
> >     al. DIY
> >
> >     ==
> >     hk, ready to drop off of the list in frustration ;o)
> >
> >     j/k
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJKDKw0AAoJEOI9Fu788VSuqzkQALAtCoL8WZSpLhOttJl9H5z9
> woYjdudGp+q8+hjYunlmAZ89aqXm7dc1fVUI7wuR1tK43nbgxQvvLLndn6IfOVDu
> 27d6HGPaQLfRnFEQlovysCXS76encpB36AOGH1JE8egJ2g8A9FhyE4Cvh4eghvHq
> ymuwJoR8Gg7DVd7Ft8LfDAT2jpk4s1AwKzM8nWLdpR/8yhq+ri2ZBXjvoESCmaVy
> QaMFKT70zZbQVyPQziZl9scgD7dkmzLzXIpBYJmertCHE3tvFI2R0oJydDBdyCxC
> pIXnwovTWzXzxIlc2kx96UevLIcvZhCaqAFLqhyQWanPrZqlWhS817pz1JWePpUv
> pm5/a9ga0408HFe/Rv+M10gxiS7sB6rxHfRhd5WNyDZ+K3kdbNgz+xjpfa3B+gI6
> JB2B0hs5jd3zFLWX4SUf8uVvqnq2MnADxNDVbrSW9bwC5lS4MZ3DFNNmPzAGpPKG
> tURpbx6NiA9PSyEEeTkTuORmsm/1yLe4773zh/drxYWlN5YoERzC5QMguf+Z/apU
> m7t4y1MQKyb8HV8+LzVxRXlNrNk7hOWZiQ5c/YBCNt2LweVof5NXZd95Bif9Oc34
> z4L+3b7jPzlX8aHydJ7ul+W8AZFZGtkL6s6gaM2R5hRXGOP2IA+Tj09shfd0Dlg4
> DzQiiMtvZi3VZYciKZig
> =djCj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090514/796f6988/attachment-0001.htm