[Noisebridge-discuss] Access control and the DJ booth

Dr. Jesus j at hug.gs
Wed Sep 30 19:20:19 UTC 2009


On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Leif Ryge <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
> Jason Dusek wrote:
>>   I second the idea of making the DJ booth lockable; it would be
>>   a good secure storage space for parties and it's just as well
>>   if we protect the servers during parties. When we expand the
>>   kitchen, I will push for locks all over it.
>
> Locks all over it? Seriously? Why? Given the long-previously and
> recently expressed opposition (read: blocks) to this kind of thing, it
> is odd to say that you will "push for locks all over it" without so much
> as a suggestion of why you think it is necessary.

I only have a minute here, so I'm going to make some brief comments:

Please recall that the suggestion was to have a gate on the DJ booth
and that a lock was optional.  I'm not sure where this idea that I'm
suggesting this because I'm counter to the idea of unconditionally
open access came from, because even if there was a lock anyone with a
door key can get in.  Just like with 83c, worthy individuals didn't
seem to have any trouble obtaining them or borrowing one from someone
else regardless of membership.  That being said, it's clear to me now
the mere idea of a lock within our space as opposed to on the
perimeter incites such negative emotions that I'm sorry I brought it
up in the first place.

I don't understand why these emotions come up in the context of
physical access control and not in other contexts.  I mean that: I'm
honestly curious in an academic sense as to whether there's some kind
of out of sight, out of mind effect involved here.  See, restricting
access to common resources to facilitate a smoothly functioning
organization has precedent in terms of electronic assets, so I thought
this was a reasonable suggestion in the same vein.  We already "lock
up" root access to most of the electronic assets and I don't think
I've heard a single complaint about that system.

I'm not trying to start a riot here, and let's all be civil about
this, but I can't help but raise the following question: if the
corporation is gifted a computer or a network service, do we want to
treat access to those differently than physical gifts?

>>   I can not shake the feeling that three of you -- Andy, Jake
>>   and Rubin -- have all enjoyed the opportunity to publicly
>>   abuse Dr. Jesus in this thread. It reflects poorly on
>>   Noisebridge and I would like to remind you all that
>>   non-propetarianism, strong privacy and so on are not actually
>>   rules at Noisebridge. We have only one rule -- be excellent to
>>   each other. I interpret that to mean something better than
>>   "just be barely tolerable" and I think that, with a little
>>   reflection, you will all agree. I hope you will all apologize
>>   to Dr. Jesus for your more ridiculous remarks, in public as
>>   well as in private.
>
> Are we reading the same thread?! Andy's email, especially, was
> completely polite and in no way abusive. What are you talking about?

I agree, Andy didn't need to be included there.  Thanks for being
levelheaded about this, Andy.



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list