[Noisebridge-discuss] Deep Crack

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Ceren Ercen wrote: 
> TL;DR summary: 

> - I'd like NB able to host some loaned things.
> - Insurance won't "let" us, can we fix that?
> - Deep Crack's problematic for more than just that reason.
>=20

My replies are inline.

>=20
> Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>> Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>>> However, I object to it being at Noisebridge, as it violates our
>>> current policies which you yourself have vehemently defended, and
>>> leaves us open to a large amount of liability.
>>
>> So does this mean that you've decided that it's not OK for people to
>> host large objects at the space that do not fit on the shelf?
>>
>> The discussion from last night about Rachel's hypothetical large
>> furniture sized sewing machine seem relevant here. Is there a grey are=
a
>> about some things?
>=20
> It is relevant, and as I recall, you were snorting at how anyone who
> didn't "get Noisebridge's way of doing things" could think any sort of
> loaner equipment was a "good idea". You even called us out, asking
> anyone who disagreed with what you'd just stated to out themselves by
> raising their hands in front of the whole membership.
>=20
> I certainly wanted to say that I felt it was sad that we were not
> allowing ourselves any sort of wiggle room for loans of fun and
> interesting equipment, but I felt some serious derision coming from you=
r
> corner.
>=20
> ...perhaps I was imagining it.
>=20

I felt Rachel's sewing machine was a good point. It's specific to a
project, not a loan to the group.

> To clarify:
>=20
> 1) I would LOVE Noisebridge to be somehow able to host loans. (I even
> raised my hand.)

I'm not suggesting a loan to Noisebridge. Sorry for the confusion.

>=20
> 2) As far as I could tell, you clearly opposed loaned equipment until
> Deep Crack wasn't going to be a free-and-clear donation. Is this
> different because there simply will never be a chance to "hold out for =
a
> no-strings-attached" version?
>=20

I still oppose loaning Noisebridge equipment.

>=20
> 3) And then on TOP of all of this, i feel we really cannot afford to
> avoid "our insurance doesn't cover our asses if any loaned equipment
> falls over and squishes someone's 6-year-old kid / sews their hand to
> the table / cooks your nads". If we host loaned things, we need to
> update our insurance policy somehow, and insurance isn't something you
> can "address  if and when a problem actually comes up."
>=20

That seems like a reasonable concern. The device is one of a kind and no
insurance will cover it. I think that John knows this is the case but I
will clarify it with him.

>=20
>> Do you interpret our current policies as "no personal possessions in t=
he
>> space even during limited projects" or am I reading that wrong?
>>
>> The discussion of liability is perhaps only relevant if we can even
>> bring the thing into the space.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jake
>=20
> No, it's relevant Right Now, because otherwise it may be
> full-steam-ahead. Do-ocracy and all that. Also, this Loaner Equipment
> Question isn't going to go away.
>=20

No, I care very much about what others think of this issue. I am
convinced by this argument that many members of Noisebridge have very
serious concerns. I am not going to bring Deep Crack to the space
without addressing many (including the legal and fiscal) if not all of th=
em.

> Perhaps it's good to talk about it in advance to avoid jerking around
> both the "donor" (or lender) and the members/visitors who aren't willin=
g
> to risk their in-country statuses or visas to play chicken games with a=

> temperamental INS. It's entirely possible they'd have to /prove/ they
> weren't around the machine at any point, because immigration doesn't
> play burden-of-proof games. Gov't is a jerk like that.
>=20

I don't think that this is as much of a concern for the non-citizen as
you say that it is. I think they wanted a clarification and I have asked
the leading legal scholar on the subject.

>> Have we become a space where for each project, we must justify and sel=
l
>> every project to every member? That seems like it's not the case. It
>> would be quite sad if it was so.
>=20
> I think that's called "consensus", especially when it exposes us to
> legal risk, cost, may fuck over other members, or makes our insurance
> invalid.
>=20

That wasn't the question that I asked but it raises a good point. I
don't think that Deep Crack raises our legal risk; I don't think it will
fuck over other members and it certainly doesn't "make our insurance
invalid" as far as I can tell.

> Also IIRC bringing equipment, supervised or not, into the space isn't a=

> member-restricted privilege.
>=20

Would you clarify that? I do not understand what you mean...

> A time frame certainly goes a long way towards mitigating the space
> issues, but occupied floor space is only about 20% of the problem here.=

> This is definitely your DIYBioFridge, and I DO feel we were unexcellent=

> to bounce that thing out of 83c, regardless of whether a particular
> member was driving us nuts.
>=20

I am a member and known to the group. The person who brought the fridge
and the discord to the group wasn't either. I am discussing this before
it has been brought to the space and it has been a topic (perhaps on the
back burner) of discussion for many many months.

Your dislike of the handling of the DIYBio fridge, I would hope, should
be separate from Deep Crack.

> If we have a committee that will work out what is necessary to allow us=

> to cover our asses while bringing loaned equipment in, I want on it. I
> will read boring legal documentation till my eyes bleed.
>=20

I don't want loaned equipment in the space. :-(

I want to lead a group and part of that requires (I believe) something
that won't fit on my shelf.  I want to share it with the group as widely
as possible and it seems like this isn't possible at this point in time.

Best,
Jake

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091008/85e74cea/attachment-0003.sig>