<p>I love what christina has said here.</p>
<p>I think that duncan is extremely defensive about this issue because he has set up a semi-private personal office station at noisebridge, and uses it as something of a home base. He and I first met by conflicting over a semi-private personal office station he had set up in the sewing area. He suggested we bring it up at a meeting, and when I did everyone at the meeting told him that semi-private personal office stations are seriously deprecated at noisebridge. He simply relocated it. I believe that he walks a thin line of Not Sleeping At The Space but I don't believe that it solves this problem, and I believe that internal tension over this drives some of his more defensive responses to things. I think defusing this situation would aid him hugely in his ability to integrate into this community.</p>
<p>I agree with what christina has said about trust being a throughline issue for all of these social conflicts. Exclusion, in a sense, is what defines a community, and I believe we are at a point where we need to flex our social muscles and exert control over the direction our social animal takes.</p>
<p><a href="http://mediumreality.com">mediumreality.com</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 12, 2011 10:20 PM, "Christina Olson" <<a href="mailto:daravinne@gmail.com">daravinne@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">
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">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">justduncan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> AMEN!<br>
>><br>
>> Very well put, Rubin!<br>
>><br>
>> To those whose view of Noisebridge is primarily through the discussion 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 works<br>
>> and doesn't need chaperones or self-appointed draconian authoritarians whose<br>
>> sole purpose for a visit to Noisebridge is to tell people what to do. 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 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">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">rubin@starset.net</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><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>
>><br>
>><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>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div>