<p>Yeah.... gonna have to say I'd block any move for going members only. I'm sure others would show up to block anything of the sort too.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 13, 2011 12:15 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>If the space was members only I never would have started coming around, and the same is true for many people that I have spoken with. I think the openness is crucial for lowering the bar of entry for hacking. Otherwise people will be all "oh, I'm not a hacker, that must not be for me" and our usership will become far less diverse.</p>
<p>Going members-only is the LAZY way to solve the trust problem.</p>
<p><a href="http://mediumreality.com" target="_blank">mediumreality.com</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 13, 2011 12:04 PM, "Gian Pablo Villamil" <<a href="mailto:gian.pablo@gmail.com" target="_blank">gian.pablo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The thing is, constant trust assessments require a non-trivial amount of effort, especially when we have lots of new people coming through.<br>
<br>
The costs of constant assessment vs. benefits of radical inclusion don't balance out for me.<br>
<br>
A members-only policy requires the trust assessment only once.<br>
<br>
If I could see clearer benefits (to myself) of openness, I could change my mind.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:38 PM, Christina Olson <<a href="mailto:daravinne@gmail.com" target="_blank">daravinne@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>> I thoroughly agree with this.<br>
><br>
> Cool, yay.<br>
><br>
>> I've put in my two cents before, I don't think radical openness will work.<br>
>> The group of people for whom Noisebridge is a useful resource is far greater<br>
>> than the number of people who are hackers working on cool projects. Letting<br>
>> anyone in means that inevitably the hackers will be outnumbered - even by<br>
>> well-meaning and well-behaved groups.<br>
>> I think we should *ONLY* let people into the space who we would be OK to see<br>
>> sleeping or napping in the space.<br>
><br>
> Buh? Nononononono. You've missed my point entirely. The point I am<br>
> trying to make is that we need to support a policy of radical<br>
> inclusionism by continually enacting trust-assessment of individuals,<br>
> by individuals, proportionate to how open we are. Yes, radical<br>
> inclusionism and openness requires MORE INDIVIDUAL CRITICAL THINKING<br>
> AND SITUATIONAL JUDGEMENT CALLS than a regular rule based system where<br>
> we get to all sit on our asses and point at a list of rules.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Gian Pablo Villamil<br>
> <<a href="mailto:gian.pablo@gmail.com" target="_blank">gian.pablo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I thoroughly agree with this.<br>
>> As I see it, the problem isn't really sleeping at Noisebridge, it is people<br>
>> using Noisebridge as a crashpad. Sleeping overnight happens to be an<br>
>> indicator that this is taking place.<br>
>> I'm OK with naps. People get tired, and they need to sleep. For me, sleeping<br>
>> in a public space is a good indicator of the civic health of a place.<br>
>> I would not bother any of the NB members that I know or trust, even if it<br>
>> was clear they were sleeping overnight.<br>
>> I understand that a) our lease requires that we comply with city ordinances<br>
>> and b) those ordinances forbid residential use of the space. However,<br>
>> sporadic overnight sleeping does not necessarily imply residence.<br>
>> There are people who I would rather not see at NB, but if they have to be<br>
>> there, they might as well be sleeping. At least that way they're not<br>
>> stealing or pissing people off or ruining computers. The real solution isn't<br>
>> a ban on sleeping, the real solution is keeping untrustworthy people out of<br>
>> Noisebridge.<br>
>> I've put in my two cents before, I don't think radical openness will work.<br>
>> The group of people for whom Noisebridge is a useful resource is far greater<br>
>> than the number of people who are hackers working on cool projects. Letting<br>
>> anyone in means that inevitably the hackers will be outnumbered - even by<br>
>> well-meaning and well-behaved groups.<br>
>> I think we should *ONLY* let people into the space who we would be OK to see<br>
>> sleeping or napping in the space.<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Christina Olson <<a href="mailto:daravinne@gmail.com" target="_blank">daravinne@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I thought a bit more about the ideas I put forth earlier, and a<br>
>>> component of tribalism, and maybe a more widely understandable concept<br>
>>> in general, is the concept of trust. We consider this concept a lot<br>
>>> as members/participants of a hackerspace: trust in computer security,<br>
>>> trust in information collection, distribution and management, trust in<br>
>>> government and media, and most importantly, trust in each other.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So, the discussion about sleeping at the space is a vehicle for a<br>
>>> bigger discussion that we keep having which is actually about trust<br>
>>> and how it relates to a radical inclusion atmosphere. If we radically<br>
>>> include EVERYONE, we put everyone on a level playing field, and apply<br>
>>> the same amount of trust equally to everyone. This is a warm fuzzy<br>
>>> goal we all hope can one day be applied safely in the world but in our<br>
>>> current reality it's kind of a dangerous thing. An<br>
>>> "institutionalized" atmosphere of trusting everyone, or trusting no<br>
>>> one, leads to a situation where individuals can't trust each other,<br>
>>> and trying to artificially create the thing we call "sense of<br>
>>> community" breaks it down in the long run. Trust is built over time,<br>
>>> through consistency in actions and situations. We wouldn't wake Miloh<br>
>>> up if we saw him sleeping, why? Because we've seen him and talked to<br>
>>> him and formed a model of him in our heads. His actions are<br>
>>> predictable, strongly trended towards positive towards the space and<br>
>>> the members who know him. We TRUST him. Some random person who walks<br>
>>> in for their first meeting, or attends one class, or comes in and<br>
>>> starts bothering people or stealing things, they are (you guessed it)<br>
>>> NOT TRUSTED. They have to prove over time via actions and presence<br>
>>> that they can be trusted.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Trust defines ingroups and outgroups. Trusted networks have computers<br>
>>> that you can connect to without worrying about firewall restrictions;<br>
>>> similarly, trusted individuals are ones you can express more<br>
>>> vulnerabilities in front of. A state of trust carries with it<br>
>>> privileges endemic to the ingroup, and removing that state of trust<br>
>>> relegates the trustee to the outgroup. This is a necessary social<br>
>>> function, which prevents humans with their current set of wetware,<br>
>>> from being either too vulnerable to the point of danger, or so closed<br>
>>> off that survival (formerly life-and-death, now social survival)<br>
>>> becomes impossible or extremely difficult. Food and resources are<br>
>>> shared with trusted members of a group; the group members have proven<br>
>>> that they are contributors and not simply leeches that make the lives<br>
>>> of the other group members harder.<br>
>>><br>
>>> All this abstraction is leading back to a specific response to Al. I<br>
>>> believe that the trust model being applied to sleepers at noisebridge<br>
>>> is correct and valid, for the reason that it preserves and nurtures a<br>
>>> sense of community, and a subtle but necessary active and evolving<br>
>>> in-group/out-group state. The extent to which Noisebridge opens<br>
>>> itself to all and practices radical inclusion leaves a few serious<br>
>>> vulnerabilities that are easily taken advantage of, which have been<br>
>>> experienced as theft, druggies and homeless people using the space as<br>
>>> crashspace, and strange people making community members feel<br>
>>> uncomfortable. Keeping an unwritten, nebulous, movable and mutable<br>
>>> trust code will not only keep us a little safer and more tight knit,<br>
>>> it will incentivize people who want to become trusted and be part of<br>
>>> the community, and dissuade unsuitably-motivated outgroupers, and by<br>
>>> the way this is NOT WRONG and is a GOOD THING.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. We absolutely should be okay with trusted community members taking<br>
>>> naps at the space because we know *they will not abuse this<br>
>>> privilege*, or any of the other privileges they accrue through<br>
>>> maintaining their trustability. If they do things to degrade their<br>
>>> own trustability they should be handled individually and accordingly.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. We should also feel free to wake up people who are NOT trusted<br>
>>> community members and ask them who they are and why they're here.<br>
>>> Some people will give satisfactory answers; some will not. This is<br>
>>> where you all have to put on your Big Kid Thinking Caps and use good<br>
>>> judgement on the fly.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And yes, I think you all who want to make rules for dumb shit like<br>
>>> sleeping on couches are intellectually lazy and don't want to bother<br>
>>> to do the critical thinking required to keep your community safe. Eat<br>
>>> it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I disagree with Duncan's reply that was sent before i finished typing<br>
>>> this one, that there is "no problem to be solved"; however I think the<br>
>>> problem to be solved is not "should people be allowed to sleep at<br>
>>> noisebridge" but rather "how do we constructively and comfortably<br>
>>> integrate two apparently conflicting concepts: a policy of radical<br>
>>> inclusion designed to draw in new members, and maintaining a strong,<br>
>>> tightly knit community with a high level of trust". Sleeping, kitchen<br>
>>> use and cleanliness, resource usage, theft, harassment, signs,<br>
>>> welcoming committees, the doorbell, are all subtopics of this<br>
>>> continued internal debate. There's no magic bullet, guys. We all<br>
>>> have to keep practicing trust and trustability.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> Rubin, I want minimize drama, which is exactly why I'd like people to<br>
>>>> talk about this and try to resolve it instead of it being a perennial<br>
>>>> conflict like it's been. Right now it's not about a specific person,<br>
>>>> which is a perfect time to talk about it. This way it doesn't<br>
>>>> degenerate into "I like/dislike person X, which is why sleeping at the<br>
>>>> space is fine/a problem."<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I don't want to bring it up at a meeting because it'll probably be a<br>
>>>> long conversation and I didn't want to force everyone to sit through<br>
>>>> it (or force people to chose between staying at a two hour meeting or<br>
>>>> going home and being excluded.) Email's great for this kind of<br>
>>>> discussion: people don't have to immediately respond to everything and<br>
>>>> only the people who want to participate do.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And from the number of people on this thread, people apparently do<br>
>>>> want to talk about this. A few people are saying "sleeping overnight<br>
>>>> is not a problem" and others are saying "even napping is a problem",<br>
>>>> but the way the issue is, if we shut down any discussion about it,<br>
>>>> it's essentially giving the sleepers a free pass except for the rare<br>
>>>> occasions when the Noisebridge-is-not-for-nappers folks are there to<br>
>>>> wake people up.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I want to hear people's reasons why they think napping is okay because<br>
>>>> I don't think there are any valid reasons (but maybe I'm wrong.) What<br>
>>>> I don't want to hear is people saying "let's stop talking about it" or<br>
>>>> "it's not a problem and this discussion should end". There are people<br>
>>>> who have a problem with it and it's not fair to ignore their<br>
>>>> complaints by trying to get them to shut up.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I'm against napping in the space, but I don't want to get my way<br>
>>>> because I was able to badger enough people into submission or get a<br>
>>>> loud enough group on my side. I want to listen to other people and<br>
>>>> encourage them to speak their mind. It's clear there's no consensus on<br>
>>>> this, but maybe we can figure out some kind of middle-ground besides<br>
>>>> people continually bugged about the sleepers and the sleepers<br>
>>>> continually bugged about being woken up or told to leave.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> It doesn't need to be resolved ASAP, it just needs to stop being put<br>
>>>> off. So let's talk about it.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -Al<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Just Duncan <<a href="mailto:justduncan@gmail.com" target="_blank">justduncan@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> AMEN!<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Very well put, Rubin!<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> To those whose view of Noisebridge is primarily through the discussion<br>
>>>>> list,<br>
>>>>> know that Noisebridge is excellent.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> As someone who is a regular part of the Noisebridge community, people<br>
>>>>> sleeping here is not a problem. Culturally, the community here handles<br>
>>>>> things quite well using thoughtful, situational ethics and is strongly<br>
>>>>> protective of the space, the community, and each other. Noisebridge<br>
>>>>> works<br>
>>>>> and doesn't need chaperones or self-appointed draconian authoritarians<br>
>>>>> whose<br>
>>>>> sole purpose for a visit to Noisebridge is to tell people what to do.<br>
>>>>> If<br>
>>>>> people in the space need help, we have the new 311 system on the red<br>
>>>>> payphone to get assistance and it works brilliantly, when needed.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Unless Al's answer to Rubin's question is "yes", let's let this thread<br>
>>>>> die a<br>
>>>>> drama-less death.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This thread is in no way relevant to Noisebridge at present.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rubin Abdi <<a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Why are we having an email discussion about this?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Al: Have you been to Noisebridge recently, has someone sleeping in the<br>
>>>>>> space offended you?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Is there an apparent problem that needs attention ASAP?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> Rubin<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>