<div dir="ltr">TBQH part of a hacker space is trying new things. �All of the hackerspaces on the planet have different sets of issues and deal with them differently. �An approach in one place may not work very well elsewhere. �So I submit to you this is a different form of hacking. �Policy hacking. �Trying different methods until we find the one that fits for us. �I am not sure what is happening with Consensus but it would be nice if we had a board that got us things. By things, I mean making sure the bathrooms were clean either by doocracy or by paying someone to do it. �Making sure the sprinkler system works. �Making sure we have fire extinguishers. � Making sure people are respecting the space. �Usually this could be done by doocracy but with people like you leaving Mark, that is a pipe dream. � And for noisebridge, which is 24/7 (sudroom which is not) there are different issues that you don't have to deal with. �You may or may not find yourself in the exact same situation with a bigger space. � I would strongly suggest reading over the past few years of meeting notes and seeing if you see any similarities between sudoroom and noisebridge since sudoroom is mildly based on noisebridge. �</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Torrie Fischer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tdfischer@hackerbots.net" target="_blank">tdfischer@hackerbots.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thursday, March 13, 2014 07:19:04 Marc Juul wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > well, you're doing more to fix the infrastructure than I have lately, but<br>
> > that is not the kind of problems i'm talking about.<br>
> ><br>
> > my complaint is that the culture of noisebridge has become so<br>
> > uninteresting<br>
> > and unrelated to hacking that it is bordering on irrelavent. The fact that<br>
> > you are volunteering your time to maintain the internet at a homeless<br>
> > shelter is quaint, but it doesn't change the fact that most hackers don't<br>
> > want to go there anymore.<br>
> ><br>
> > there are two categories of reasons why a hacker would want to go to<br>
> > noisebridge:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1> other hackers are there, and people they can relate to and share<br>
> > interesting conversation with, or just be around while working on projects<br>
> > of their own. �People are there experimenting on things, hardware software<br>
> > and other, and one might learn something or teach something or make new<br>
> > friends with similar interests.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2> there is a "safe space" with technical infrastructure. �This means that<br>
> > people who refuse to be HIGHLY accountable for problematic behavior are<br>
> > simply not permitted to be present (a much higher standard than we have<br>
> > now). �Oh and lets not forget at least one usable bathroom with a decent<br>
> > toilet seat and toilet paper.<br>
> ><br>
> > This also means that the technical infrastructure is in place and usable.<br>
> > For software people this means the internet works and there are outlets,<br>
> > clean places to sit (with decent posture, not fall-in couches) and tables<br>
> > for laptops and room to work with others.<br>
> ><br>
> > For hardware this means that tools are more than just the bottom of the<br>
> > barrel (try finding a pair of scissors or a phillips screwdriver) and that<br>
> > there are actually nice things (a soldering iron with a temperature<br>
> > control<br>
> > instead of $2 china disposable irons), AND more advanced tools are<br>
> > available such as microcontroller programmers, blank microcontrollers,<br>
> > and other electronic hardware for raw material.<br>
> ><br>
> > Noisebridge used to have a great collection of microcontrollers and<br>
> > programmers and breadboards and jumper wires and advanced electronic<br>
> > tools,<br>
> > but all of that stuff was REPEATEDLY taken down from the top shelf and<br>
> > scattered into the e-waste piles, and then thrown away. �Yes, our<br>
> > microcontroller and programmer collection has made its way to the trash.<br>
> ><br>
> > categories 1 and 2 are related; �if a hackerspace has one without the<br>
> > other, hackers still may not decide to go. �Certainly I think both are<br>
> > equally important. �I also feel that at this time, and for too long,<br>
> > noisebridge has not had either.<br>
> ><br>
> > P.S. please notice that ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO HELP IS TO GO TO<br>
> > NOISEBRIDGE MORE OFTEN.<br>
><br>
> Since reading the policy that visitors to noisebridge are required to<br>
> have a member vouch for them at all times, I no longer feel welcome at<br>
> noisebridge. I know that several others feel the same way.<br>
><br>
> I remember Jake's original suggestion related to this. The idea was<br>
> that anyone asking a visitor to leave would first have to ask if any<br>
> member is willing to vouch for the visitor to stay, and only if no-one<br>
> vouches can the non-member be asked to leave. That is reasonable.<br>
> Putting the responsibility on the visitor of having a member pre-vouch<br>
> for them at all times is both unwelcoming and unreasonable.<br>
><br>
> Now, I'm seeing one of the board members implying that the board will<br>
> no longer be passive, which I take it to mean that noisebridge is no<br>
> longer ruled by consensus.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I'm just an associate member of noisebridge on the other side of the US with<br>
no real influence, or even a desire to get involved, so here is my $0.02 based<br>
on my previous position of being an officer of SYNHAK, and our terrifyingly<br>
heavy-handed and pre-emptive board that was elected a few weeks ago.<br>
<br>
I feel that it is possible and somewhat important for the management of a<br>
hackerspace to be active while still respecting the wishes of the membership.<br>
The board and officers should still be held responsible to the membership by<br>
the community. Noisebridge bylaws permit the removal of the board, should it<br>
come to that:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/bylaws#c._Removal_of_Directors" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/bylaws#c._Removal_of_Directors</a><br>
<br>
It is never a good idea for the board to get to such a point that demands for<br>
resignation or removal start showing up (see synhak's discuss@ for many<br>
tears), so I imagine that the consensus process would still be respected.<br>
<br>
SYNHAK is experimenting with a few procedural changes with our governance<br>
structure in the next few weeks in an attempt to curb the decision making<br>
abilities of the board and officers. First, an amendment to our bylaws that<br>
essentially states that the membership runs the space:<br>
<br>
"The powers not delegated to the Officers of SYNHAK by these Bylaws, nor<br>
prohibited to the members through The Board or these Bylaws are reserved to<br>
the Membership."<br>
<br>
Sounds a bit 10th amendment-ish, yeah. It has no real effect on the<br>
corporation other than to explicitly state that the membership is in charge.<br>
The Board still legally retains absolute power and can do things like set a<br>
corporate alcohol and drug policy, approve a new lease, strip membership from<br>
individuals, pass a bylaw amendment that nulls this, etc. It does, however,<br>
give the membership some control over what the management does.<br>
<br>
The second component of this is an upcoming modification to our consensus<br>
process which is roughly based off of Noisebridge's. It adds three constraints<br>
on blocking consensus: One person may block consensus for no longer than 6<br>
weeks, an indefinite block can only happen with the support of a total of<br>
three members, and the reason for a block must be clearly and explicitly<br>
written in the meeting minutes.<br>
<br>
Nobody is required to approve of the reason for a block, but this prevents a<br>
single person from stopping the entire process without having to put the<br>
effort in to convince others why their position is valid. While a proposal is<br>
under a block, the community is encouraged to figure out the best way to reach<br>
consensus on the issue.<br>
<br>
If you're worried about consensus being steamrolled by the board, perhaps<br>
those concerns are best addressed by asking the board to explain how they feel<br>
Noisebridge's governance process fits in with their plans. Reaching consensus<br>
about respecting consensus, if you will.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> It makes me both sad and angry that noisebridge has become a place<br>
> where hackers don't feel welcome.<br>
><br>
> If anyone wants to help build a hackerspace similar to what<br>
> noisebridge used to be, I invite you all too come join sudo room in<br>
> oakland as we prepare to move to a much bigger space (a space very<br>
> similar to noisebridge's current space!). We have open meetings every<br>
> Wednesday at 7 pm at 22nd and Broadway, located just two blocks from<br>
> 19th street BART.</div></div><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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Ronald Cotoni<div>Systems Engineer</div>
</div>