Trust Networks Meeting Notes

Trust networks meeting notes

Tags -Tags can be both ways, from yourself and from others. Tags can be anonymous, which defers the personal connotations of leaving a negative tag and the assumed resonsibility. With the tags, the relationships, and the other features... isn t this enough? In the future, if problems arise, can we deal and add security then? Or deal with it now? Further, the issue with negative experiences, how can we note these and make them known, transparent as well as accesable to all quickly, clearly, and consisely.

Dealing with negative members. - Flaging member who have acted inappropriatly and out of sync with the projects values. Using trust networks within the existing network, basically human interactions, to help judge the member and bring attention to them.

Possible approaches to dealing with trust and new members - Having new members subscribe and have their profiles assigned, originally, to an existing base and set responsibility to the base, at first, then go from there. Questions about new members wishing to enter the network; however, not having a nearby base, how would they enter the network? And actually, why would they want to? Questions about whether bases should be attributed to the people, therefore understanding the culture and the ideas that this person may in fact carry since they are coming from a certain "base" and the projected understanding of the way "that" base runs and how the person might, in fact, act and function.

Sub networks -keeping in mind that there will be groups and group participation and possible judgements that could be taken from that, for example... those who attended the SHE conference would be accessable information and therefore read by someone and then used as information to judge that person and whatever assumptions can be made... likewise, someone who attends a destroy NOMADBASE conference... ect. -There are multiple qualities and ways to judge members and bases. With an aggregated approach, maybe this will be sufficient. -Relationship details, using that to help bring about information that will allow. -Using a basic comment place where Nomads can write excatly what they think of each other and then rank those comments with "how relative this comment, or how true is this comment" and it will be ranked accordingly.

Using a feature bewelcome uses -a verification technique of having 2 members log into a page on the same computer, using the same screen, meaning that 2 people must be in the same room at some time for them to verify one or the others, which again means that they can verify the identity and the location of one of the members.

More about trust networks -Profiles: are they accuratly representing themselves? CS uses a feature of this, asking users to judge if someones profile in fact represents well the person in flesh.

Robin input: There is a solution, very simple, but I don't it yet.

Charlie, who has been to most of the places that we would call a nomad base. He was saying that in the Casa model you come and you stay and then you get it and then you become an experienced host. Using this label to create a difference between hosts and experienced hosts, like a two level membership. How to be sure that someone is an experienced member in the culture, whatever label you want tocall it 'Experienced host', 'independent', 'someone who gets it', ect...

-It is essential for some members, since a base or a house cannot afford to have more members, say they have 2 already, that don't understand how the place works,one more would be a burden, but one more who does understand it wouldn't be an issue,in fact it might even be desirable.