[Noisebridge-discuss] key access for non-signers

[Shannon Lee]

OK, let me see if I can state the new position...

* Until we've incorporated, only people with their names on the lease have
keys.
* Once we've incorporated, everybody gets keys.
* Eventually, everybody gets electronic keypad access.

I've been mentally thinking "any time now" for incorporation, and "two weeks
to two months" for electronic keypad access.  If that's the case, I think
this is a reasonable solution.

If it's going to take longer than a couple of days to get incorporated, we
should discuss interim access solutions, for example...

* core hours (say, 12-12) that members can expect to find someone at the
space
* get more people's names on the lease -- this needn't make them board
members, but if the sticking point is people's names being on the lease,
then we should get more signers so we have more key-holders.

Some combination of the two points above should make a reasonable interim
solution.

--S

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:

> 10 PRINT "Fuck politics."
>
> Hi there, I like pie and in line replies.
>
> I was originally opposed to dabbling my fingers into the politics of this
> group via email, as email is in my opinion a shitty way of pulling
> discussion gone South back up to something positive (as in it normally
> doesn't work and everyone goes home crying and pissed). If I wasn't tired
> right now I'd search up the image of that kid winning the special olympics,
> though I'm pretty sure I'd be in some sort of copyright violation and get my
> ass kicked by a bunch of Canadians.
>
> Anyhow...
>
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Noah Balmer wrote:
>
>  For the record, so am I.  I want to see everyone who's part of noisebridge
>> have a key to the noisebridge space.  The problem is that right now there is
>> no legal entity of noisebridge, and the legal position of the lease signers
>> isn't that great.  Hopefully tomorrow this will no longer be an issue.
>>
>
> I totally understand your point of view, as well as Rachel's. The issue
> that I'm seeing (and others) simply is that there was no request/proposal to
> retract the decision made Tuesday night about giving keys to everyone (and
> also keeping a list of who got one, etc). What I saw was that someone from
> their position saw a fault in that decision and opted to act on that without
> starting some sort of group council.
>
> Looking at the current subject matter, bluntly putting it if Rachel's
> initial email was worded out more to, as an example, "Hi, I feel I've made a
> mistake with how I felt on giving keys to everyone. I feel it's a bad idea
> until we're registered. May I please ask that we don't give out keys until
> we can have a discussion about this and either resolve my issue which I'm
> presenting here, or agree on a new decision?" I don't think there would be
> much of a problem here.
>
> Instead what I read (translated from text on the screen to thoughts in my
> head) was, the short of, "Hi, I feel I've made a mistake with how I felt on
> giving keys with everyone. I feel it's a bad idea until we're registered. At
> this point in time since I'm legally tied to the lease I am *politely*
> demanding that any other key holders not to give out keys until we are
> registered."
>
> So, I am very much in line with the opinions of folks from both sides of
> the fence. I think everyone having access (with some sort of moderation/note
> taking, etc) is great. I also feel that everyone's ass should be covered if
> needed. What I see creating static over the bridge (*knee-slap*) is the fact
> that this was brought up and action was immediately enforced, there was no
> discussion about it (with just board members or members in general), and by
> taking action some folks assume this to be a sign of utilizing power.
>
> Suck.
>
> Anyhow we're here. We've learned a thing or two. My recommendation to
> anyone who feels like they are butting heads to possibly schedule some time
> to meet up off of the list in person and discuss why this is such an issue,
> and better ways to approach it. Once again I'd link to the kid winning the
> special Olympics, but I wont waste time and move onto my major own fucking
> issue here.
>
> Stop wasting time folks. This is a rather trivial hiccup. This is very much
> a three legged race. When you fall, if no one wants to get back up the group
> will stay down. Someone has to start getting up for this to work. Learn and
> continue on.
>
>  I don't want to work for people who don't want my help.  Backstabbing is
>> not necessary.
>>
>
> Please excuse me being a total fucking douche bag (as it's going to sound
> just like that), but mind me legitimately asking the very innocent question
> of, what have you contributed to NB? I'm bad with names and faces. It would
> be nice to know because I don't want to automagically label you as "that
> dude on the list that made no rational sense to me about his views and
> opinions in regards to this group." I feel that everyone around Tuesday
> night has giving something to the group and it would be nice to not know
> them as faceless bitchy talking heads.
>
> This email is now much longer then I originally intended it to be. Hope
> that you've taken your grain of salt, I look forward to working with you,
> the reader, in the near future on something kick ass, etc, thanks.
>
> GOTO 10
>
> --
> Rubin Abdi
> Rubin at Starset.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20081002/820c9a07/attachment-0003.html>