<div dir="ltr">Radical inclusion or radical exclusion are equally epic fails. Either extreme biases towards one or the other set of dooms. Even if there's some middle ground set for initial walk-ins..the space STILL fails absent a robust culture of cherishing excellence while banishing badness.<div>
<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>Oren Beck<br><br>816.632.3695</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Jake <span dir="ltr"><<a 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">
<div class="im">On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Johny Radio wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 12/23/2013 3:06:54 PM, "Jake" <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I don't think we need to automatically keep people out, except with the gate which has the potential of working pretty well if it is physically maintained more than it is.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The gate does not keep anyone out, whether it's working or not. They just get buzzed in, or come in when somebody else leaves. Do you disagree?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
yes i disagree. People can only buzz others in if they have a code. Since they're using their code, they're making a conscious decision at some level to let a person in, and they are in some small sense responsible for that person.<br>
<br>
As for people coming in on the heels of others, yes it happens but I don't see a good solution for it at this time until the culture changes so that there is more engagement between people who are, for example, coming through the door together. When I let someone come through the door with me I usually try to talk to them a little bit and learn something about them. So far I have not had to ask any of those people not to come in with me.<br>
<br>
The important thing to keep in mind is that there is so much low hanging fruit in terms of gate repair. Right now the gate doesn't even latch unless you push it closed. It needs oil in the latch, and adjustment or repair of the door-closer mechanism above.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I believe we can and should err on the side of letting people in rather than keeping them out. I think the change we need to make is in discussing the "right" to be at noisebridge after you have gotten in. I want to make noisebridge a welcoming place for newcomers, but once a person has been introduced to the space and given the opportunity to participate in a good way, including becoming an associate member if they want, they will understand that coming to noisebridge is not a god-given right regardless of your behavior. After people have found the space and learned about it, if they choose to go against our community standards in any way, general or specific, the community has the right to ask them to leave, without a specific "excuse" like "you left food in the kitchen" or "you were caught sleeping".<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
All you just described is the current status quo. Do you disagree?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I believe that the status quo is easily interpreted to default to unwelcome, meaning that we need to change our wording to clarify welcoming to newcomers. If we do that we will have more people coming who are good for noisebridge and get more involved, including becoming associate members, and that will improve everything.<br>
<br>
I do agree that recent changes have helped to reduce the false belief that everyone has a right to noisebridge regardless of behavior or acceptance by the community.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As for your last suggestion, about a process and incentives for generating hands-on help in the space, I truly believe that inclusion (by the associate membership invitation extended to everyone) and improved quality of the space resulting from the new policies will get us more people and more hands.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Even without AM's, Nb already HAS radical inclusion. Do you disagree?<br>
<br>
Radical inclusion has not produced helpers. Do you disagree?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't think noisebridge should practice radical inclusion, and i think that when we have, it has not resulted in improved conditions.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.<u></u>noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-<u></u>discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>