<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I was on docent shift last night. I
asked one fella I found drinking beer in the stairway to leave.
Two folks filed membership applications (under the "vouched for"
section of the binder), and remained at Noisebridge after 23:00. I
recognized both people as having been coming to NB for several
months, and neither had heard of the new policy. All told, when I
left there were three or four active hackers in the space.<br>
<br>
On the way out, Monad commented that one day Noisebridge will be
welcoming to activists again. Thinking of Cypherpunks, open-source
hackers/contributers, freedom on the web, freedom of information,
etc... This resonated with me, and I will consider further the
impact of proposals such as this in these terms. Will limiting
access to NB attract activists? Will the proposal reduce
disruption, disturbance, theft to facilitate hacking? Are there
better ways for NB to be more welcoming?<br>
<br>
At the meeting where this proposal was consensed, John and I both
strongly stood aside. As such, I have been steering many to file
sponsorship paperwork to avoid being asked to leave. One person
I've spoken with is adverse to filing any paperwork at all, and
has not been at NB form 23:00-10:00. As regards the bug last
night, that's my failure for not introducing myself and the
membership binder to everyone that came in the door. I'm not
convinced that extending the outage time will bring more excellent
hackers to NB.<br>
<br>
--Kevin<br>
<br>
On 10/21/2013 05:26 PM, John Ellis wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEKig-iG2JdfB9CGo0cAMKS5p4oyMTZOdgg6LzPR+W09tftevA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">HI Jake,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I didn't think this original proposal was a good idea.
Problems like you mention below, with genuine hackers being
asked to leave, are bound to happen at various times.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jake
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">tl;dr at
the end of this post is the amended consensus item for
this week<br>
<br>
I just found out that an excellent hacker was working on
stuff late at noisebridge last night, and was asked to
leave at 11:00PM. This is terribly sad and should not
have happened. I consider it to be a serious bug in the
system.<br>
<br>
I tracked down the cause of this crash to the horrible
mutation of my last proposal, specifically, making the
members-and-guests policy only take effect after 23:00
(11PM) until 10AM (I had wanted it to be 24/7)<br>
<br>
With this current borked policy, people continue to come
into noisebridge without meeting anyone, without getting a
sponsor, no tour and no introduction. And regardless of
whether they're hacking or abusing the space, they are
asked to leave at 11PM by the same anonymous unfriendly
mystery that let them in. This is total shit.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></blockquote>
<div>Just wondering, what defined this particular person as
an "excellent hacker"? Asking a excellent hacker to leave,
is IMO unexcellent, even if its just a
miscommunications regarding the new policy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">-John<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>