Jim,
You are clearly frustrated by this transition and very passionate in your
beliefs. I was simply pushing this thread to something actionable like
discuss and bring it to a vote at the next membership meeting. I prefer
that these discussions are had in spoken word as there are nuances that are
lost in email and text communication. There was no ill will or attempt to
be condescending although that was the end interpretation. And you were
very gracious to supply a series of assumptions about my character and
intent. That being said, I too am passionate about our space and am
encouraging this move to a vocal discussion in which a true change may
occur.
I feel that if a problem is raised then a proposed solution should be
provided as well. In any vote or election, the majority rules while the
rights of the minority are maintained. I simply disagree with your approach
in this thread. Name calling and focusing on anecdotal examples of where
the system will fall apart does not get us closer to a better solution. I
stand by my original statement that this thread has turned argumentative.
Ryan
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:13 PM, James Keener <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With all due respect the group at large, this transition has beendiscussed and passed by vote by the membership.
I know; I don't see how that's important to remind me. It's as if you
think I wasn't part of that initial conversation, or subsequent
discussions. I kind of take offense to the condescending nature of
your message. Just because something was voted on doesn't mean I don't
have to like it and doesn't mean I can't personally ask people to not
go to the extremes. Also, it doesn't mean I can't remind people that
(currently) not-public-by-default isn't the same as private.
You sound like someone who tells the opposite political party to shut
up because they lost an election. It's a dumb, rude, and ignorant
thing to say.
I do not see how this thread will end with something actionable and willprobably promote more of an offensive/defensive argument.
It won't, because this has all been hashed out and everyone voted
because not enough people cared about my and others arguments against
Google Groups. You seem to forget that I've been here this whole time.
Why am I still making a fuss? Because that's how I am. I vehemently
disagree with it; that doesn't mean I'm going to sabotage it
(somehow?) or throw a hissy fit and quit, but it doesn't mean I can't
continue to raise objections and ask people to understand what they're
doing and to no bombard people with 25MB attachments.
I would propose that if there is a large faction that is still opposedto this transition, I would raise the issue at the next membership meeting
and push for change.
Obviously not enough people care. Apparently people find it too
difficult to find space to host images or documents (iirc that was one
of the reasons people wanted attachments).
Jim
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Ryan Priore <ryan.priore@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
With all due respect the group at large, this transition has beendiscussed
and passed by vote by the membership. I do not see how this thread willend
with something actionable and will probably promote more of anissue at
offensive/defensive argument. I would propose that if there is a large
faction that is still opposed to this transition, I would raise the
the next membership meeting and push for change.wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Geno Soroka <ukranians2@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:10 AM, James Keener <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
original
I also really take offense to the group
being private. It's not private, it's just not public-by-default.
There is a big difference.
I don't think having a private mailing list is going against the
public,spirit of HackPittsburgh. Our wiki is public and will always remain
memberincluding our member meeting minutes. But just like you have to be a
listto use our tools, and to participate in certain things, in order to
participate in HackPittsburgh related discussions, and to edit the wiki
(anyone can view it), you have to be a member of HackPittsburgh.
Let me give you an example. Lets say a bunch of members get together and
want to collaborate in a competition against another makerspace. If the
Thisis public, the competition can go and read exactly what our plans are.
andhas happened in the past (we worked together on competitions), and
everything we ever wrote can be accessed by anyone right now.
You can say, "just be cautious and dont give away plans", people forget
all the time. I forget myself. You post something, like a phone number,
Autonomousa second later go, oh crap I forgot that the list is public...
It makes working together on competitions nearly impossible, without
having to start your own mailing list just for that competition.
thatpower wheels is a good example. They have their own google groups, and
availableis one of the reasons.
It doesnt have to be a competition, there are many things that
HackPittsburgh does which is private HackPittsburgh business only
backto members. There is nothing morally wrong with keeping that information
private only to members.
If you really want to know whats going on, anyone can always read the
meeting minutes, but we always approach those with knowing that they are
public.I as the secretary can't relax when I write those. I have to go
someoneand re-read them 20 times to make sure I didn't say anything which
(today),could find offensive.
That is our public image. I would love to have a private forum for
discussion where we can just forget what society happens to think
Hackerand be ourselves. Be funny, be silly, have fun. That is part of the
spirit too.
-Geno
