[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleeping at NB

[Kelly]

> * [More contentious] We need an explicit process for challenging those
> who challenge the ideas of noisebridge. Some feel that involves
> calling the police, I feel that's a failure of our system. Jake says,
> and many agree with him, that we just need to go talk to people. But
> we don't, or if we do, we rarely report back. We need to actually have
> a process to do this, and commandeer some brave soul  to do it and
> report back to meeting.

While I disagree with plenty of Jake's input on this topic, I think
this basic tenet is the really important part. Whether we are posting
sleeper photos to the wiki or names to discuss, neither of these will
be helpful if the situation is not actively discussed with the
sleeper. When you actively talk to someone about their behavior,
hopefully you are able to treat them as a human being and a fellow
hacker. And then there will be roughly one of two outcomes: a) they
feel bad and attempt to mend their ways, or b) they don't care about
minor community disapproval and will continue their disrespectful
behavior as long as they can get away with it. I think that in the
case of reaction A, posting photos or names publicly is a dick move.
But reaction B, despite being basically a violation of our One Rule,
is really common. The next option is to have a more stern talk with
them, and this is not something that just anyone is capable of or
interested in. This happens from time to time when there are conflicts
in the space, but when it's done respectfully, it usually involves
some mediation (we have a bunch of awesome people who are good at
this) and that means that the problem has to become common knowledge
to some degree.

As has been pointed out, snitching is an irrelevant construct since
there's no official rule. If you see people sleeping in the space,
talk to them. If you're uncomfortable talking with them directly, send
an email to some NB regulars that you think can handle it. If you're a
prankster, please try to treat sleepers as humans before posting
photos of them on the internet. And if you are fond of your anonymity
at Noisebridge, don't sleep in the space. Though we'll certainly try
to respect it, your anonymity is your responsibility.

-Kelly

PS. Danny, good luck creating any "process" for this. At Noisebridge,
it's usually best to just do what needs doing, rather than waiting for
a process to tell you what to do.

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 14:42, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
>> This is the traffic light problem -- you've got a bunch of people at a
>> corner waiting to cross.  There is a system of rules about when it's ok to
>> cross, embodied in the walking man / stopping hand light.  Occasionally,
>> some adventurous person just goes ahead and crosses the street when it seems
>> appropriate, and everybody else follows.  So, two models for social
>> permission: rules-based, and leadership based.
>> It seems to me that Noisebridge is stuck standing on the corner: we don't
>> have the "go" light of a set of rules, and we're stuck waiting for
>> adventurous souls to just step out into traffic -- but we can't actually
>> *ask* then to do so by anything so prosaic as electing them, we just hope
>> someone does something interesting that everybody will follow.
>> It may seem depressing to people who think of themselves as self-actuallized
>> and motivated and whatnot, but most people require some form of social
>> permission in order to do stuff.  If it's not built into the social DNA,
>> it's certainly beaten in there by socialization.  If we don't have a
>> mechanism for asking the group whether it's OK to do something, we aren't,
>> by and large, going to do it.
>> Thus, mostly at Noisebridge either nothing gets done or it feels like a
>> sneak-around, except by people who either have a great deal of social
>> capital or are just socially tone-deaf -- the emergence of "strong man"
>> leadership.  No rules exist except social convention, which requires a
>> series of tiresome shouting matches in order to change.
>> So, we have leaders and we have rules, but neither of them are very
>> effective, and neither of them are within the group's power to change.
>> I'm not standing for re-election to the board, so I feel comfortable
>> advocating this:  I think we should have a set of rules ("no sleeping at
>> noisebridge") that are written down in a central place, which we can change
>> if we need to.  I think we should have elected leadership that is
>> responsible for making sure things get done, and that they should take their
>> jobs seriously (as opposed to the current model of simply electing people
>> who take Noisebridge seriously to positions of authority, and then claiming
>> that they're not really in charge).  I think we should have voting so that
>> we can easily change the above if it's not working.
>> If we're not going to do all of the above, we should at least pick one.
>> The above system works for the vast majority of organizations in the US, at
>> least.  It is the default that people expect when they walk in the door, and
>> so the least expensive in terms of training and enculturation.  It means, I
>> think, that we're taking "getting giant robots built" more seriously than
>> the ongoing political experiment.
>
> I'd agree with some of this, although I'd note that it's easy to
> overstate NB's problems or how they would be fixed in a more
> traditional system. This isn't a squat in its dying moments of chaos.
> We're drama-ry but not actively horrendously dysfunctional: stuff
> *does* get done, and the stuff that didn't in this case suffered
> because of exactly the same problems that pester more traditionally
> organised entities. We've all been in perfectly traditionally
> constituted groups whose financial managers has been overworked, or
> who had a period when an official got behind on a key task without
> others noticing (not blaming Kelly or her predecessors!). Handling the
> large numbers of people involved in NB is a tough problem whether you
> org like a corp or a co-op.
>
> Additionally, it's important to understand while people can be
> frustrated, at least in these early days of Noisepoll, it seems like
> more people in the poll said (paraphrasing) that the thing they valued
> most at NB was its principles, its openness, and its anarchic
> precepts. If you switch completely (which I also think would be
> impossible), you'd lose the thing that many people love about NB.
>
> We risk being too binary and not-invented-here about this. There's a
> huge set of knowledge about how to run successful communal operations,
> some of which we can adapt, some of which we might innovate on. The
> dangers are well-known, the problems we face familiar. We don't need
> to switch too radically to adapt, although I think there's a
> willingness to practice and push through some reform.
>
> We have a couple of months breathing space to think about this (as
> long as it doesn't distract from our real problem which is getting
> more regular donations and stabilising the finances). Also, speaking
> as a would-be tyrant, I would note that the small number of members in
> good standing and a presumably strong influx of new members is the
> perfect moment for Emperor Palpatine to make his move^W^W^W^W^W^W, uh
> I mean suggest through consensus some structural reforms.
>
> Moxie, MItch, Rachel, Liz -- you've all had experience in alt systems,
> what would you say the required reading was? Everything I know about
> fixing systems like this I got from The Tyranny of Structurelessness
> <http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html>.
>
> Finally, some ideas off the top of my head, not all that I agree with,
> but none of which would change our basic functioning:
>
> * Create actual, narrow roles and delegate to them -- "prince of
> trash-keeping", "posse of financiers', "nightwatchmen", "printer
> monitor". Have these people report to Meeting regularly, and be
> transparent in what they do. Allow roles to shift, but ensure that one
> responsibility of the role is to find and train the successor.
>
> * Change to near unanimity consensus at Meeting --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Near-unanimous_consensus
>
> * Explicitly encourage an atmosphere of documentation and
> transparency: we have guidelines, but we don't write them down. Some
> people know stuff but they don't have time to convey it to the rest of
> us. We need to help people do this.
>
> * The one thing that sticks out about Noisebridge to me compared to
> other functioning communes is that we have not yet reached the
> signs-and-explanation singularity. Maybe we need more signs!
>
> * Even if we have no official voice, we need some one-to-many
> communication system. NB-announce should get the meeting notes, the
> meeting notes should be more than just what happens at meeting, they
> should be funny, friendly introduction to everything that's happening
> at NB. (Yeah, I'm probably suggesting this because I could do this.)
>
> * [More contentious] We need an explicit process for challenging those
> who challenge the ideas of noisebridge. Some feel that involves
> calling the police, I feel that's a failure of our system. Jake says,
> and many agree with him, that we just need to go talk to people. But
> we don't, or if we do, we rarely report back. We need to actually have
> a process to do this, and commandeer some brave soul  to do it and
> report back to meeting.
>
> Okay, I gotta go have Christmas, but I hope that's stir the pot. I'm
> going to keep the noisepoll running and report on its results at the
> next 5mof. Do fill it in if you haven't already http://j.mp/noisepoll!
> And spread to your friends!
>
> d.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
>
>
>
>> --S
>> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shannon Lee
>> (503) 539-3700
>>
>> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>