<p>I believe the issues are intricately related and request that their discussion stay in the same thread.</p>
<p>I have personally taken doocratic action over the last year and put several couches outside. Al, maybe you could do the rest if this problem bothers you so much?</p>
<p><a href="http://mediumreality.com">mediumreality.com</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 13, 2011 1:26 PM, "Al Sweigart" <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@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 don't want to stray too much from the topic of sleepers, so maybe we<br>
could talk about members-only proposal stuff in a new thread? (The<br>
thefts of expensive stuff from Noisebridge in the last year is<br>
definitely a problem that should be addressed, maybe with memebrs-only<br>
hours or something else.)<br>
<br>
Getting rid of the couches is a fantastic idea. I recall people being<br>
against the idea when they hear it, but I don't think the couches add<br>
that much to the space in the way of getting work/projects done.<br>
<br>
It might not entirely address the sleeper issue, but I do think it<br>
would cut it down where it wouldn't be such a big problem as it's<br>
been.<br>
<br>
-Al<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Gian Pablo Villamil<br>
<<a href="mailto:gian.pablo@gmail.com">gian.pablo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Well, I'm seriously suggesting "members only"! :)<br>
> NYCR is run that way, with a weekly open night, and it hasn't gotten in the<br>
> way of a diverse membership, or of people doing cool stuff. What it HAS done<br>
> is that stuff doesn't get stolen, and no-one gives a shit if someone naps in<br>
> the space, or pulls an occasional all-nighter. If someone really cool rocks<br>
> up that can't afford dues, they can get a "scholarship" so to speak, but<br>
> they still go through the membership assessment.<br>
> To Christina's comment, you are constantly trust assessing NEW people. Once<br>
> you get to know someone, you don't have to do it anymore (or at least you<br>
> don't have to do it continuously). Believe me, I've been in communities<br>
> where establishing trust was extremely important, and taken very seriously.<br>
> It takes effort. You don't do it for just anybody. Having to constantly<br>
> monitor your environment and ask yourself if the person next to you is going<br>
> to steal your laptop is a real bummer.<br>
> That said, things DO seem to be working generally well at Noisebridge these<br>
> days. There are interesting projects going on. The Makerbots are working,<br>
> and have spawned. Cool people turn up to interesting events. I really don't<br>
> care if someone has a nap there. (I'd rather my stuff didn't get stolen, but<br>
> I've taken other measures around that.)<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Ryan Rawson <<a href="mailto:ryanobjc@gmail.com">ryanobjc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> no one is seriously suggesting 'members only'.<br>
>><br>
>> Gian: the point of christina's original comment was that _everyone is<br>
>> continuously trust assessing_ other people. It's part of interacting<br>
>> with others. I think christina was more stating facts than<br>
>> prescribing anti-dotes.<br>
>><br>
>> Rubin also has a good point too that you can't argue with some people<br>
>> - some people can sleep at noisebridge but not others is hard to<br>
>> explain to someone who is _really good_ at manipulating other people.<br>
>><br>
>> In the mean time, this thread is boring. Try to make it more dramay<br>
>> but in a novel way - members only, ha!<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM, VonGuard <<a href="mailto:vonguard@gmail.com">vonguard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Yeah.... gonna have to say I'd block any move for going members only.<br>
>> > I'm<br>
>> > sure others would show up to block anything of the sort too.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Oct 13, 2011 12:15 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> If the space was members only I never would have started coming around,<br>
>> >> and the same is true for many people that I have spoken with. I think<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> openness is crucial for lowering the bar of entry for hacking.<br>
>> >> Otherwise<br>
>> >> people will be all "oh, I'm not a hacker, that must not be for me" and<br>
>> >> our<br>
>> >> usership will become far less diverse.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Going members-only is the LAZY way to solve the trust problem.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> <a href="http://mediumreality.com" target="_blank">mediumreality.com</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Oct 13, 2011 12:04 PM, "Gian Pablo Villamil" <<a href="mailto:gian.pablo@gmail.com">gian.pablo@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The thing is, constant trust assessments require a non-trivial amount<br>
>> >>> of<br>
>> >>> effort, especially when we have lots of new people coming through.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The costs of constant assessment vs. benefits of radical inclusion<br>
>> >>> don't<br>
>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> change<br>
>> >>> my mind.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:38 PM, Christina Olson <<a href="mailto:daravinne@gmail.com">daravinne@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >> will<br>
>> >>> >> work.<br>
>> >>> >> The group of people for whom Noisebridge is a useful resource is<br>
>> >>> >> far<br>
>> >>> >> greater<br>
>> >>> >> than the number of people who are hackers working on cool projects.<br>
>> >>> >> Letting<br>
>> >>> >> anyone in means that inevitably the hackers will be outnumbered -<br>
>> >>> >> even<br>
>> >>> >> by<br>
>> >>> >> well-meaning and well-behaved groups.<br>
>> >>> >> I think we should *ONLY* let people into the space who we would be<br>
>> >>> >> OK<br>
>> >>> >> 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<br>
>> >>> > 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<br>
>> >>> > 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">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<br>
>> >>> >> is<br>
>> >>> >> people<br>
>> >>> >> using Noisebridge as a crashpad. Sleeping overnight happens to be<br>
>> >>> >> an<br>
>> >>> >> indicator that this is taking place.<br>
>> >>> >> I'm OK with naps. People get tired, and they need to sleep. For me,<br>
>> >>> >> sleeping<br>
>> >>> >> in a public space is a good indicator of the civic health of a<br>
>> >>> >> place.<br>
>> >>> >> I would not bother any of the NB members that I know or trust, even<br>
>> >>> >> if<br>
>> >>> >> it<br>
>> >>> >> was clear they were sleeping overnight.<br>
>> >>> >> I understand that a) our lease requires that we comply with city<br>
>> >>> >> ordinances<br>
>> >>> >> and b) those ordinances forbid residential use of the space.<br>
>> >>> >> 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<br>
>> >>> >> to<br>
>> >>> >> be<br>
>> >>> >> there, they might as well be sleeping. At least that way they're<br>
>> >>> >> not<br>
>> >>> >> stealing or pissing people off or ruining computers. The real<br>
>> >>> >> solution<br>
>> >>> >> isn't<br>
>> >>> >> a ban on sleeping, the real solution is keeping untrustworthy<br>
>> >>> >> people<br>
>> >>> >> out of<br>
>> >>> >> Noisebridge.<br>
>> >>> >> I've put in my two cents before, I don't think radical openness<br>
>> >>> >> will<br>
>> >>> >> work.<br>
>> >>> >> The group of people for whom Noisebridge is a useful resource is<br>
>> >>> >> far<br>
>> >>> >> greater<br>
>> >>> >> than the number of people who are hackers working on cool projects.<br>
>> >>> >> Letting<br>
>> >>> >> anyone in means that inevitably the hackers will be outnumbered -<br>
>> >>> >> even<br>
>> >>> >> by<br>
>> >>> >> well-meaning and well-behaved groups.<br>
>> >>> >> I think we should *ONLY* let people into the space who we would be<br>
>> >>> >> OK<br>
>> >>> >> to see<br>
>> >>> >> sleeping or napping in the space.<br>
>> >>> >><br>
>> >>> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Christina Olson<br>
>> >>> >> <<a href="mailto:daravinne@gmail.com">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<br>
>> >>> >>> concept<br>
>> >>> >>> in general, is the concept of trust. We consider this concept a<br>
>> >>> >>> lot<br>
>> >>> >>> as members/participants of a hackerspace: trust in computer<br>
>> >>> >>> security,<br>
>> >>> >>> trust in information collection, distribution and management,<br>
>> >>> >>> trust<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> trust<br>
>> >>> >>> and how it relates to a radical inclusion atmosphere. If we<br>
>> >>> >>> radically<br>
>> >>> >>> include EVERYONE, we put everyone on a level playing field, and<br>
>> >>> >>> apply<br>
>> >>> >>> the same amount of trust equally to everyone. This is a warm<br>
>> >>> >>> fuzzy<br>
>> >>> >>> goal we all hope can one day be applied safely in the world but in<br>
>> >>> >>> our<br>
>> >>> >>> current reality it's kind of a dangerous thing. An<br>
>> >>> >>> "institutionalized" atmosphere of trusting everyone, or trusting<br>
>> >>> >>> no<br>
>> >>> >>> one, leads to a situation where individuals can't trust each<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> time,<br>
>> >>> >>> through consistency in actions and situations. We wouldn't wake<br>
>> >>> >>> Miloh<br>
>> >>> >>> up if we saw him sleeping, why? Because we've seen him and talked<br>
>> >>> >>> to<br>
>> >>> >>> him and formed a model of him in our heads. His actions are<br>
>> >>> >>> predictable, strongly trended towards positive towards the space<br>
>> >>> >>> and<br>
>> >>> >>> the members who know him. We TRUST him. Some random person who<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> it)<br>
>> >>> >>> NOT TRUSTED. They have to prove over time via actions and<br>
>> >>> >>> presence<br>
>> >>> >>> that they can be trusted.<br>
>> >>> >>><br>
>> >>> >>> Trust defines ingroups and outgroups. Trusted networks have<br>
>> >>> >>> computers<br>
>> >>> >>> that you can connect to without worrying about firewall<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> proven<br>
>> >>> >>> that they are contributors and not simply leeches that make the<br>
>> >>> >>> lives<br>
>> >>> >>> of the other group members harder.<br>
>> >>> >>><br>
>> >>> >>> All this abstraction is leading back to a specific response to Al.<br>
>> >>> >>> I<br>
>> >>> >>> believe that the trust model being applied to sleepers at<br>
>> >>> >>> noisebridge<br>
>> >>> >>> is correct and valid, for the reason that it preserves and<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> been<br>
>> >>> >>> experienced as theft, druggies and homeless people using the space<br>
>> >>> >>> as<br>
>> >>> >>> crashspace, and strange people making community members feel<br>
>> >>> >>> uncomfortable. Keeping an unwritten, nebulous, movable and<br>
>> >>> >>> mutable<br>
>> >>> >>> trust code will not only keep us a little safer and more tight<br>
>> >>> >>> knit,<br>
>> >>> >>> it will incentivize people who want to become trusted and be part<br>
>> >>> >>> of<br>
>> >>> >>> the community, and dissuade unsuitably-motivated outgroupers, and<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> their<br>
>> >>> >>> own trustability they should be handled individually and<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> is<br>
>> >>> >>> where you all have to put on your Big Kid Thinking Caps and use<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> bother<br>
>> >>> >>> to do the critical thinking required to keep your community safe.<br>
>> >>> >>> Eat<br>
>> >>> >>> it.<br>
>> >>> >>><br>
>> >>> >>> I disagree with Duncan's reply that was sent before i finished<br>
>> >>> >>> typing<br>
>> >>> >>> this one, that there is "no problem to be solved"; however I think<br>
>> >>> >>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>> strong,<br>
>> >>> >>> tightly knit community with a high level of trust". Sleeping,<br>
>> >>> >>> 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>><br>
>> >>> >>> wrote:<br>
>> >>> >>>> Rubin, I want minimize drama, which is exactly why I'd like<br>
>> >>> >>>> people<br>
>> >>> >>>> to<br>
>> >>> >>>> talk about this and try to resolve it instead of it being a<br>
>> >>> >>>> perennial<br>
>> >>> >>>> conflict like it's been. Right now it's not about a specific<br>
>> >>> >>>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>>> at<br>
>> >>> >>>> the<br>
>> >>> >>>> space is fine/a problem."<br>
>> >>> >>>><br>
>> >>> >>>> I don't want to bring it up at a meeting because it'll probably<br>
>> >>> >>>> be a<br>
>> >>> >>>> long conversation and I didn't want to force everyone to sit<br>
>> >>> >>>> through<br>
>> >>> >>>> it (or force people to chose between staying at a two hour<br>
>> >>> >>>> meeting<br>
>> >>> >>>> or<br>
>> >>> >>>> going home and being excluded.) Email's great for this kind of<br>
>> >>> >>>> discussion: people don't have to immediately respond to<br>
>> >>> >>>> everything<br>
>> >>> >>>> and<br>
>> >>> >>>> only the people who want to participate do.<br>
>> >>> >>>><br>
>> >>> >>>> And from the number of people on this thread, people apparently<br>
>> >>> >>>> do<br>
>> >>> >>>> want to talk about this. A few people are saying "sleeping<br>
>> >>> >>>> overnight<br>
>> >>> >>>> is not a problem" and others are saying "even napping is a<br>
>> >>> >>>> problem",<br>
>> >>> >>>> but the way the issue is, if we shut down any discussion about<br>
>> >>> >>>> it,<br>
>> >>> >>>> it's essentially giving the sleepers a free pass except for the<br>
>> >>> >>>> rare<br>
>> >>> >>>> occasions when the Noisebridge-is-not-for-nappers folks are there<br>
>> >>> >>>> to<br>
>> >>> >>>> wake people up.<br>
>> >>> >>>><br>
>> >>> >>>> I want to hear people's reasons why they think napping is okay<br>
>> >>> >>>> because<br>
>> >>> >>>> I don't think there are any valid reasons (but maybe I'm wrong.)<br>
>> >>> >>>> What<br>
>> >>> >>>> I don't want to hear is people saying "let's stop talking about<br>
>> >>> >>>> it"<br>
>> >>> >>>> or<br>
>> >>> >>>> "it's not a problem and this discussion should end". There are<br>
>> >>> >>>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>>> a<br>
>> >>> >>>> loud enough group on my side. I want to listen to other people<br>
>> >>> >>>> and<br>
>> >>> >>>> encourage them to speak their mind. It's clear there's no<br>
>> >>> >>>> consensus<br>
>> >>> >>>> on<br>
>> >>> >>>> this, but maybe we can figure out some kind of middle-ground<br>
>> >>> >>>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>>> 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<br>
>> >>> >>>> <<a href="mailto:justduncan@gmail.com">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<br>
>> >>> >>>>> discussion<br>
>> >>> >>>>> list,<br>
>> >>> >>>>> know that Noisebridge is excellent.<br>
>> >>> >>>>><br>
>> >>> >>>>> As someone who is a regular part of the Noisebridge community,<br>
>> >>> >>>>> people<br>
>> >>> >>>>> sleeping here is not a problem. Culturally, the community here<br>
>> >>> >>>>> handles<br>
>> >>> >>>>> things quite well using thoughtful, situational ethics and is<br>
>> >>> >>>>> strongly<br>
>> >>> >>>>> protective of the space, the community, and each other.<br>
>> >>> >>>>> Noisebridge<br>
>> >>> >>>>> works<br>
>> >>> >>>>> and doesn't need chaperones or self-appointed draconian<br>
>> >>> >>>>> authoritarians<br>
>> >>> >>>>> whose<br>
>> >>> >>>>> sole purpose for a visit to Noisebridge is to tell people what<br>
>> >>> >>>>> to<br>
>> >>> >>>>> do.<br>
>> >>> >>>>> If<br>
>> >>> >>>>> people in the space need help, we have the new 311 system on the<br>
>> >>> >>>>> red<br>
>> >>> >>>>> payphone to get assistance and it works brilliantly, when<br>
>> >>> >>>>> needed.<br>
>> >>> >>>>><br>
>> >>> >>>>> Unless Al's answer to Rubin's question is "yes", let's let this<br>
>> >>> >>>>> 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">rubin@starset.net</a>><br>
>> >>> >>>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>> >>>>>> Why are we having an email discussion about this?<br>
>> >>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>> >>>>>> Al: Have you been to Noisebridge recently, has someone sleeping<br>
>> >>> >>>>>> in<br>
>> >>> >>>>>> 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>
>> >>> >>>>>><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>
>> >>> >><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>
>> >><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>
>> 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>
> 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>
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>