<p>Any sarcasm contained in my previous message is general, vaguely comedic in intent, and not specifically aimed at any given individual.</p>
<p>Heaven forfend.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 23, 2013 5:25 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>When commenting on the likelihood of things being stolen it may be useful to note that we are now in the middle of a global financial recession. Maybe you've heard about it? It has been ongoing since 2008 and has continuing ripple effects across many communities, especially ones that were already marginal.� This has affected many people and changed the way valuables may be perceived or treated. Relevant to our particular location, SF is a destination for many marginalized people who are seeking social services (such as healthcare), because they exist in some places and not others. </p>
<p>Additionally, the income disparity between young technology workers and the society within which they exist is increasing dramatically, affecting the social dynamics anyplace 'young technology workers' congregate.</p>
<p>I think nthmost is right on in describing our most easily addressed problem currently as a scaling issue.</p>
<p>TL;DR perhaps there are 'more homeless people than before' on a slightly larger scale than within our priveleged, myopic clubhouse.</p>
<p>R.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 23, 2013 11:42 AM, "Seth David Schoen" <<a href="mailto:schoen@loyalty.org" target="_blank">schoen@loyalty.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Gavin Knight writes:<br>
<br>
> Seth,<br>
><br>
> Out of ignorance, what do you feel is the differences physically,<br>
> culturally etc that allowed this at the previous location and not now<br>
<br>
Hi Gavin,<br>
<br>
I don't know what accounts for the difference, or at least I don't have a<br>
single pet theory about it. �It makes me sad, and I realize that I was much<br>
more enthusiastic about the old Noisebridge.<br>
<br>
I've tried to brainstorm things that changed; here are 23 (a classic<br>
hacker number) notions about similarities and differences from 83C to 2169<br>
-- with a focus on those that might be relevant to thefts and other ways<br>
that Noisebridge participants treat one another abusively. �These are<br>
based on my own perceptions and recollections and might be wrong or<br>
incomplete.<br>
<br>
These are in alphabetical order to stress that I'm not trying to make a<br>
claim that a particular one is clearly more important than another. �Also,<br>
not all of these things are changes for the worse.<br>
<br>
<br>
2169 has become known as an appealing target to people intending to abuse<br>
its hospitality and resources, in a way that never happened to 83C.<br>
<br>
83C held fewer, and smaller, widely-advertised public events, solely due<br>
to space limitations.<br>
<br>
83C was in a physically less prominent location than the new space, with<br>
much less foot traffic passing directly in front of the space.<br>
<br>
83C was more (not less!) focused on protecting attendees' anonymity and<br>
privacy, with more explicitly advocated norms against cameras and<br>
photography in the space, in favor of pseudonyms and proxies, and<br>
against publishing records of who attended meetings or became a member.<br>
In large part, I think people worried that documented participation in<br>
a "hacker space" could stigmatize people in the outside world. �Some<br>
of these norms were also modeled on European privacy activists'<br>
anti-photography norms.<br>
<br>
83C was smaller, so most users of the space were physically in view of<br>
other users at all times.<br>
<br>
A higher fraction of the community at 83C attended and participated in<br>
Tuesday night weekly meetings.<br>
<br>
Answering the door at 83C required physically opening it by hand, and<br>
going to let a guest in personally.<br>
<br>
It was against Noisebridge's norms to create rules in advance of or in<br>
anticipation of problems, but not in response to problems. �Most members<br>
appeared willing to create rules (beyond the one rule of excellence) in<br>
response to problems that actually occurred; the watchword seemed to be<br>
not "don't create rules" but "don't create rules pre-emptively".<br>
<br>
Membership was more valued at 83C; members took more responsibility<br>
and received more respect, and there was much stronger social pressure<br>
encouraging, though not requiring, regular users of the space to seek<br>
membership. �I perceived a sense that ideally every regular Noisebridge<br>
user would seek membership. �However, there was no clear consensus that<br>
members should receive any concrete benefits over non-members, and there<br>
was a clear understanding that non-members were welcome to use the space.<br>
<br>
More people who used 83C were regularly employed in technology-related<br>
jobs than at 2169.<br>
<br>
New visitors to 83C appeared to feel more obligation to introduce<br>
themselves and account for themselves. �I don't know whether this is<br>
because of how they were treated, because of the fact that a<br>
particular individual had just physically opened the door for them,<br>
because they had less of an understanding that the space was<br>
automatically or completely "open to the public", or for some other<br>
reason.<br>
<br>
New visitors and new prospective members were often introduced in<br>
person at a Tuesday night meeting. �Some were visiting from far away<br>
and they were welcomed and congratulated for having made the trip.<br>
<br>
Noisebridge's existence at 83C was much less widely publicized and<br>
advertised. �Noisebridge was much less famous then than it is now.<br>
<br>
Non-members wanting to use 83C for events or gatherings were more<br>
strictly admonished to bring their plans to a weekly meeting ahead<br>
of time.<br>
<br>
Organized, pre-announced group events may have represented a larger<br>
overall fraction of the uses of 83C. �In any case, they were much more<br>
conspicuous due to the smaller space and lack of many separate rooms.<br>
<br>
The 83C space frequently closed at night, and it always routinely closed<br>
when the last keyholder left. �Keyholders and non-keyholders generally<br>
regarded this as necessary and appropriate. �No non-keyholders expected<br>
or demanded to be present in the absence of a keyholder. �There was a<br>
widespread view that only members should be keyholders, but this view<br>
never commanded unanimity or formal consensus and was never implemented<br>
in practice, with several members explicitly acting against it.<br>
<br>
The community at 83C more often compared itself to other existing<br>
hackerspaces and was more apt to express curiosity about what those<br>
hackerspaces were doing, how they were organized, and what their<br>
communities were like.<br>
<br>
The community of users of 83C was smaller, so the users and members were<br>
much more likely to know and recognize each other.<br>
<br>
The consensus process may have been taken more seriously at 83C; in any<br>
case, a higher fraction of users of the space had heard of it and had<br>
some general understanding of its nature. �More questions were brought<br>
to formal consensus, although there was no clear rule or consensus<br>
about what topics needed to be brought to consensus.<br>
<br>
The lease on 83C was originally in the name of a few Noisebridge board<br>
members, individually, rather than in the name of the corporation. �This<br>
created social pressure to respect the space as a way of respecting the<br>
leaseholders, and because of their personal liability for it. �I think<br>
it also created a sense of gratitude to them for taking a risk and<br>
expending resources so that the space could exist in the first place.<br>
<br>
The mediation or conflict-resolution processes were less well-developed<br>
at 83C than they are at 2169. �I suspect more people at 83C would have<br>
said that conflict-resolution was important, but that doesn't mean it<br>
was practiced more or better there. �There were already multiple people<br>
who simply stopped coming to 83C rather than attempting to use some<br>
official conflict-resolution method or channel. �Defining "excellence"<br>
then was probably as difficult as it is today.<br>
<br>
There was a more defined culture about the intended purpose of the space<br>
at 83C (though I don't think I could call it "well-defined").<br>
<br>
There were fewer valuable tools and instruments at 83C than there are<br>
at 2169.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Seth David Schoen <<a href="mailto:schoen@loyalty.org" target="_blank">schoen@loyalty.org</a>> � � �| �No haiku patents<br>
� � �<a href="http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/" target="_blank">http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/</a> � � � �| �means I've no incentive to<br>
� FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150 �| � � � �-- Don Marti<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>
</blockquote></div>