<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">On 10/30/2013 10:32 PM, Jake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.BSF.2.00.1310302229150.67450@pe2950.spaz.org"
type="cite">To be clear, I never proposed a policy with limited
hours. That aspect was introduced and passed without me and I
watched as it failed to do what I had hoped to achieve. So I
proposed removing that aspect of it and putting it the way I had
originally intended it.
<br>
<br>
I felt that the 11PM "closing time" concept was really bad, even
though people liked some aspects of it, it had too much negative
results and it had to go.
<br>
<br>
i'm actually shooting for a shift in the way people access the
space, to encourage more connection between people who choose to
become Members or Associate Members, and those who want to use the
space without joining anything. The latter (and new people in off
the street) will hopefully have a better connection to the
community so they can participate better, as opposed to the total
atomization that was happening up until now.
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In fairness about criticizing this new
policy... another policy was in play
<br>
for only a few weeks and it was already overruled without giving
it the three
<br>
months allotted to see if it improved the space.
<br>
Yes, people were complaining about it, but people are also
complaining about
<br>
this, aren't they?
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Jake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jake@spaz.org"><jake@spaz.org></a>
wrote:
<br>
The front page of the website is a wiki. You can edit it
if you
<br>
think it needs to change. When did you stop being a
hacker?
<br>
<br>
This policy hasn't been in effect a full day yet, and yet
you're
<br>
full of criticism for it with ZERO constructive
suggestions.
<br>
[insert joke about constructing bunk beds here]
<br>
<br>
as for killing the goose that lays the golden eggs,
apparently
<br>
more people believe that to be true about people who
refused for
<br>
so long to do anything about the downhill slide that
noisebridge
<br>
has been in for a long time. Geese can die from lack of
care you
<br>
know.
<br>
<br>
As for being surprised that members passed this, another
way to
<br>
word it is that after weeks of discussion about this
issue, all of
<br>
the members who decided to show up agreed that it needed
to be
<br>
done.
<br>
<br>
problems are not solved by blocking or criticising
efforts.
<br>
Problems are solved by making changes until things work
better.
<br>
<br>
As for noisebridge's public image, I empower you to
publicize the
<br>
subtle concept that the general public is welcome to stop
by and
<br>
that they will almost certainly be invited in and given a
proper
<br>
introduction and tour, and that we are eager to see them.
<br>
<br>
While you're at it please tell them that we are working
hard to
<br>
replace our current perception by the public as a place
you would
<br>
never WANT to go with one where you WILL want to go and
hack. And
<br>
if you refuse to recognize the reality that the golden
eggs don't
<br>
WANT to go to noisebridge because of its radical
inclusivity,
<br>
you're ignoring a lot of people's opinions.
<br>
<br>
-jake
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Leif Ryge wrote:
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Jake
wrote:
<br>
in every practical way nothing has changed
<br>
at all.
<br>
<br>
[...]
<br>
<br>
Noisebridge continues to be open to the
<br>
public 24/7 just as it always was.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Do you actually believe those two statements? I
almost
<br>
expect you to say "not
<br>
wittingly" next!
<br>
<br>
The front page of the website now says "Noisebridge
is
<br>
open 24/7 to Members,
<br>
Associate Members and guests thereof".
<br>
<br>
It seems pretty obvious that people who don't know
<br>
anyone there would, upon
<br>
reading that, get the impression that they can't
just
<br>
drop in. I think most
<br>
people (by a large margin) who have done awesome
stuff
<br>
at Noisebridge didn't
<br>
know anyone physically present the first times they
<br>
visited the space. So, I
<br>
think this policy will have a significant negative
<br>
impact.
<br>
<br>
As I've said before, I think you're killing the
goose
<br>
that lays golden eggs.
<br>
<br>
I am especially disappointed that this extremely
<br>
drastic change was adopted at a meeting with only
four
<br>
members present. I hope the membership of
Noisebridge
<br>
will reconsider this.
<br>
<br>
~leif
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<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>
As one of the few people at the meeting with opposition to both
limiting access to Noisebridge and creating an Associate Member
role...<br>
<br>
Many concerns were raised at the meeting, and I have listed some on
the notes page.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_10_29">https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_10_29</a><br>
<br>
In addition to substantive concerns, process was also discussed. The
response I heard was that only ~4 members have been able to attend
Noisebridge meetings for the last couple months and this proposal
has been discussed for several weeks already.<br>
<br>
I have been urging patience and questioning the urgency of many
consensus decisions at Noisebridge. Recalling proposals to amend
consensus for de-membership to mean consensus minus two, to ban
Pigon, and to limit access.<br>
<br>
As Tom pointed out, we spent two hours in discussion. Even after, I
suggested that we bring the amended text back next week. I was the
only person at the meeting with this position. We agreed, as Rachel
wrote, that "Noisebridge is hacking itself".<br>
<br>
At the meeting.. concerns were heard, responded to, and amendments
were made. <br>
<br>
Conservative consensus moved very quickly on a decision that
radically changes the way humans will interact with Noisebridge.
(Note that there must be a better way to create opportunity for
greater feedback and participation than what went down over that
last month or so on the mailing list and at the Tuesday meeting.
Link's proposal to set a quorum is preventative.)<br>
<br>
I remain concerned that limiting access will not benefit
Noisebridge, but am optimistic that if this becomes clear we will
act quickly. <br>
<br>
Emphasis be made that if one person is asked to leave as
not-a-member, associate member or guest there off, all should be
asked to leave. Truth be told, I have never seen the Noisebridge
roster of members in good standing and could not refute anyone's
claim that they are a member.<br>
<br>
-Kevin
</body>
</html>