[Noisebridge-discuss] So, how many people live at noisebridge now?

[Albert Sweigart]

Yes. I mostly want to prevent the space from being abused, more than
being against sleeping/crashing at NB. It's just that I wouldn't want
NB to be used as a living space or a hotel, and it's easy enough for
someone to say, "I'm not living here, I'm just going to be sleeping
here for the next few nights until I move on somewhere else." or "This
guy is just going to stay overnight a couple times while he's in
town."

Also, it would be nice for us to hash out (at least informally on the
mailing list) some boundaries. I'm all for not dealing with things
until they become actual problems, but in this particular issue has
come up before. I've personally seen an instance late at night where
people in the space were told to try to keep it quiet by someone who
wanted to go back to sleep. Sure, people will try to keep it
reasonably quiet ("reasonable" being subjective) and those sleeping
can wear ear plugs (if we have them), but when push comes to shove,
who is more in the right?

So, where do we stand on the noise level vs. people sleeping? I'd say
that people can't have any expectation of quietness from power tools,
general chatter, and classroom lectures. I'd be more inclined towards
quiet vs. playing music.

Where do other people stand on this?

-Al


On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
> I dunno, I think it's only a problem when it's a problem, if you see
> what I mean.  Obviously we can't have people actually living there; that
> is impractical and against our lease and against the zoning regulations
> (or some other regulation; I'm thinking of the one about how you aren't
> allowed to live at the office unless it's specifically live-work space,
> which NB is not).  Also it's not like there are beds or shower
> facilities.  If I need to nap, I can nap; if someone else needs to use
> the lathe at the time, well then that's just my bad luck.
>
> Also, if they're not bothering anyone who's trying to work, or
> destroying useful stuff, why should anyone have a problem with people
> staying up late drinking and playing games?
>
> Pretty much everything we do is on a case-by-case basis and it lets us
> not have Rules, which then we'd have to enforce, even if it didn't make
> sense to do so.  I'm all for case-by-case bases.
>
> Rachel
>
> Albert Sweigart wrote:
>> So, to put out the obvious question: When does just zonking out at
>> Noisebridge get to the point where it becomes a problem? I'd think
>> that if you go to Noisebridge planning to work late and not catch the
>> last BART more frequently than once or twice a month, that isn't
>> acceptable. Though I wouldn't see a problem with people staying up all
>> night working on a project (as opposed to staying up all night playing
>> games and/or drinking).
>>
>> For fairness, we could come up with some rules and limits for how many
>> times someone crashes at Noisebridge. But nobody is going to be around
>> often enough to enforce them. If we do it on a case by case basis,
>> then people might cry out about inequitable treatment ("but so-and-so
>> has slept here more often than me and nobody is saying anything...").
>> Though the latter is probably the most reasonable.
>>
>> What are other people's ideas of where the line is? I think sleeping
>> at NB more than once or twice a month, or coming to NB planning to
>> sleep there is too much. Especially if it would be every month.
>>
>> -Al
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>