[Imc] twisted locks, twisted security

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

Mike Lehman wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> Well that is what you PERCEIVE (in regard to your comment about having
> no problems using the inside lock), but the fact is your actions in not
> paying attention to something which, to the best of my understanding,
> was explained in detail to everyone that Sascha gave a key to (and
> NUMEROUS times on this list), along with certain other indiviudals, have
> indeed created the problem of people being locked out and UNABLE TO
> ENTER THE IMC.
> 
> ONCE AGAIN:
> (pardon me, Bob, these caps aren't meant towards you specifically, but
> at the general problem of a seeming lack of communication that is part
> of the problem)
> 
> UNTIL THE PRESENT LOCK IS REPLACED (AND NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE
> IGNORING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THIS LOCK THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO
> IGNORE), PLEASE NOTE THIS:
> 
> A. YOU MAY INDEED SUCCESSFULLY LOCK THE DOOR FROM THE INSIDE, UNLOCK IT,
> LOCK IT WHILE LEAVING, AND NOTICE NOTHING AMISS.
> 
> B. THE NEXT PERSON USING THE LOCK WILL OFTEN FIND THAT THEY CANNOT ENTER
> THE IMC, THAT, IN FACT, THEIR ATTEMPTING TO UNLOCK THE IMC WILL RESULT
> IN NOTHING EXCEPT TOTAL FRUSTRATION AND WONDERING WHY PEOPLE CAN'T
> FOLLOW EXPLICT AND CLEAR INJUNCTIONS AGAINST LOCKING THE FRONT DOOR OF
> THE IMC FROM THE INSIDE.
> 
> The Steering group will consider proposals about what to do about this
> situation again this Sunday. I can tell you that I will support no
> change UNLESS WE HAVE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS UNDERSTANDING FROM
> EVERYONE INVOLVED THAT THE FRONT DOOR WILL NEVER, EVER BE LOCKED FROM
> THE INSIDE AGAIN.
> PERIOD.
> 
> Only then will I consider installing any temporary physical locking
> device on the front door until the front of the building is
> reconstructed.
> 
> Why, you minght ask, am I being so anal and bitchy about this?
> 
> A. Because this whole situation has been handled incredibly poorly by
> those involved. A problem was created and blown up into mythical
> proportions that could have been handled in much better fashion by
> simply contacting and engaging in discussion with the Space group and
> the Steering group, asumming that the Space group did not satisfy the
> desires of the complaintant.
> 
> The problem being that, AFAIK, the Space group never heard anything
> about this until it hit the main e-mail list and forced it into the lap
> of the Steering group on an emergency basis.
> 
> And there is NO emergency. If you are doing something unwise, in your
> opinion, you quit doing that until you have sought assistance and had
> the problem concerned rectified satisfactorily.
> 
> You don't just imply that you are going to be repeating your behavior
> and make statements to the effect that it is up to others to prevent the
> possible harm from befalling you.
> 
> B. Most importantly (now that I've gotten MY beef off my chest about the
> way that this whole affair has been handled in way that indicates a
> reckless disregard for the way that the IMC makes decisions as a group),
> the present lock will remain in use with, at most (because it has not
> been determined whether this is a workable solution yet) an added latch
> hook on the door.
> 
> This means that anyone who still chooses to disregard the explicit
> instructions not to turn the inside lock WILL STILL BE ABLE to lock
> people out by their disregard of the impact of their choice in behavior
> on others.
> 
> Until I am personally convinced that we will NOT have a recurrence of
> such anti-social behavior on the part of those with access to the IMC, I
> will support no changes in how access is allowed to the IMC, EXCEPT for
> an examination of the need for regulation of afterhours use of the IMC
> so that it is clear that those who do so will abide by IMC policies, or
> to bring any disagreements with same to the attention of the relevant
> IMC group, WHILE CONTINUING TO ABIDE BY IMC POLICY UNLESS AND UNTIL SAID
> POLICY IS CHANGED.
> 
> The IMC is very much a group-driven enterprise that is very much
> dependent on members abiding by policies in good faith for the safety,
> security, and good of all members and IMC resources. We've been through
> these issues lately with Tech (people simply not abiding by use and
> configuration of computers), with Space (in regard to non-members using
> IMC resources), and now with Space again, repeatedly, with this whole
> lock issue.
> 
> We are a very loosely structured group, with a great deal of opportunity
> for people to have input and participate in decisionmaking. Totally
> ignoring the means which we have set up to organize ourselves is very
> destructive of group initiative and cohesion. I hope that no one takes
> this personally, but it has gotten to the point where something needed
> to be said in public to convince people that there actually are a group
> of people that have been working on this issue, but who have been
> consistently ignored by those who feel that this is an issue that we
> have not addressed. I would suggest that those concerned with this issue
> going in a particular direction attend the Steering group meeting this
> Sunday and COMMUNICATE with it, if they cannot wait until the next Space
> group meeting next Wednesday to do so.
> 
> Thank you for listening to me rant,
> Mike Lehman
> 
> Bob Cook wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm. Every time that I've locked the imc's front door from the inside
> > I've been able to open it...
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc


   When is the steering meeting?  Can interested non-members come?