[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleeping at NB

[Jacob Appelbaum]

On 12/23/2010 01:39 PM, Moxie Marlinspike wrote:
> 
> On 12/23/2010 01:09 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>>> And unfortunately there are things about noisebridge which make hacking
>>> the motherfucking planet something you'd rather do somewhere else.
>>
>> I think it would be awesome if you would list some of those here. I have
>> a really hard time getting upset about someone sleeping on a sofa. what
>> is the impact to me programming or reading? Perhaps that I can't sit on
>> the sofa?
> 
> There's a certain "geography" of a place that defines what is likely or
> possible to occur within it.  When you walk into Noisebridge, the
> chances are high that you'll walk into a room of people watching TV on
> the projector, playing video games, sleeping on the couches, or
> comparing fart noise apps on their iphones.  With a few exceptions,
> people don't go to Noisbridge because they've got a great idea, they go
> to Noisebridge because they're bored.  And this defines the geography.
> 
> The world around noisebridge has its own geography: sidewalks are for
> walking, stores are for buying things, the BART is for commuting to
> work.  The geography of the sidewalk makes it difficult for me to ride a
> bike on it, and the geography of a store makes it difficult for me
> compose a symphony in it.  Both are totally possible, but there's
> something about the way they're set up that provides a cultural
> resistance to those activities.  And so in many ways the possibilities
> of our lives are defined, and the only way to change that is to change
> the geography.

I pretty much agree with all of this and it's really beautiful prose -
something I've come to expect from you. I'm glad you're engaging in this
discussion Moxie.
> 
> When I see people doing things at Noisebridge that I consider inspiring,
> they always appear to be sort of sneaking past the culture of what's
> going on around them.  I'm not talking about a place that's buzzing with
> happening projects along with a single person taking a nap in the
> corner, but the inverse.  Ideally I think you'd want the geography of a
> hackerspace to encourage inspiring projects, not set up a culture that
> offers resistance to them.  If that's not the case, what's the
> difference between Noisbridge and any other place?
> 

I think that is an incredibly depressing assessment but it is also
rather short on details. Could you give an example of some things that
we as a community could do - both to reshape the geography and that
would inspire you? What is it that you see only in passing, only when it
sneaks around?

>> I'd love to hear about other issues because some of them are really
>> probably something that does impact us all. It would be good to fix
>> pressing issues that push you away because you're part of the reason
>> that Noisebridge is such a fucking anarchist mess. You personally. :-)
> 
> I think Noisebridge is a really interesting experiment in public space,

We'll, I'm glad for that. Sort of.

> but I'm sorry if I ever somehow gave you the impression that anarchy is
> "no rules."  Anarchy is "no rulers," which is very different.

Oh, there's nothing to be sorry about. I think that we set some very
basic agreements at the start and they are intentionally difficult to
change. Part of this is to ensure that the space has and continues to
have no rulers; at any point, we can reach consensus on various issues
that need to be reached.

For really major issues - like finding a new space, we've done it and
people were heard - all of their concerns, even the most trivial. For
other minor issues that are not contentious, we've done it as well. For
issues that are are really contentions and force people that do not want
to be forced?

In any case, I'm now talking about methods - like consensus versus
ranked choice voting. In some ways, I think it's irrelevant and in other
ways, I think the methods we employ are actually important to the goals
we hope to achieve.

We wanted to avoid sybil related issues at various points in time and we
also wanted to ensure that some values (anti-racist, anti-homophobic,
pro-free software, pro-free hardware, pro-co-hacking) were kept
together. We've largely put all of that together under the banner of
"being excellent" to each other.

> Anarchists actually *love* rules.  The "circle a" was Proudhon's
> shorthand for "anarchy is order," and even the very first anarchist
> writings were all about ideas for... rules!
> 

Ha, sure. Some anarchists love orderly rules and some love order without
written rules. I'd say the CrimeThink people in Days of War, Nights of
Love are hardly advocating the love of rules...

Though I agree with your assessment of Ⓐ; I hardly think Noisebridge is
somehow not an anarchist space because it does not fit perfectly with
every aspect of how Proudhon might have done it.

> I mean really, if Noisebridge is an "anarchist space" because it imposes
> no rules in addition to the state framework it is surrounded by, does
> that mean that Dolores park is an anarchist space too?
> 

Your framing seems a bit off - you imply that the only way to shape a
space is with rules; why is that?

I'll try again:

Would you tell me about your dreams for the place?  What could our
experiment be in your vision? What could Noisebrige as a community
create as a unifying project? Or a set of unifying meta-projects?

All the best,
Jake