I'm not sure we need this, but if it does get created perhaps bureaucracy@could be sent to discuss weekly in digest form so people aren't out of the loop but don't have to deal with hourly emails.
Regards, Andrew l On Mar 20, 2014 3:26 PM, "alex kot" <[email protected]> wrote: > Build, bizops, and noc (if the website is down) also affect the entire > community. For transparency you can allow anyone to opt-in or out of the > mail listing, also archive the emails. Or we can just limit proposals to > be a no reply and allow all discussion to go into sub topics? > > > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:02 PM, Torrie Fischer < > [email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:55:24 alex kot wrote: > > This is more to filter out the noise. Not everyone cares about these > topics > > appearing in their email. I am ok with [email protected]. Some > > people care only about events and cool things happening. Not a 20+ > thread > > of people trying to figure/argue out what is best for the space. I am a > > fan of engineering and if people can fine tune what they want for email, > I > > think that is a good thing. > > Right, I agree. > > However, bureaucracy is something that affect the entire community. > Proposals > are a subset of bureaucracy. If a controversial change is brought up and > the > only people talking about it are subscribed to bureaucracy@, that leaves > out a > lot of folks. > > If we want a bureaucracy list, I think we need better mechanisms in place > for > enforcing transparency. If someone has a new proposal, everyone needs made > aware of it. Thats the nature of consensus: everyone consents to it. > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:19 PM, Torrie Fischer > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:50:57 alex kot wrote: > > > The Problem: While trying to fine tune our polices at the > > > space, discussion topics may look bad for non-members. > > > The Solution: I propose creating a "[email protected]" and > > > direct > > > all traffic of policies to that email. > > > > I prefer that we stop worrying so much about policy and instead focus on > > building a hacker space. > > > > Things we don't need: > > > > * A formal proposal for everything > > * Arguments about whether or not things happened in the past > > * The bureaucracy of recording votes > > * Using noisy governance mechanisms to replace competency based > evaluations > > * A drug policy > > * Committees to figure out if we're building servers "right" > > * Committees to build a floor plan > > * Selling out to corporate benefit instead of just giving more money > > * Looking at every situation with "Are we going to be liable for > something?" > > * Rules for who is and isn't allowed to hack on stuff based on having the > > time and money to become a member > > * An "official" logo > > > > Those are just a few of the things I know of in the last two years that > have > > distracted all of us from actually building SYNHAK, though all but two > have > > occurred in the last three months. > > > > If it were to be created though, I'd prefer the name > [email protected] > > or even [email protected] since thats really what it > is. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
