[Noisebridge-discuss] Paid for cleaners, have they ever come by the space?

[Danny O'Brien]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:

> Danny O'Brien wrote, On 2011-11-15 23:52:
> > Notes, they say:
> > Will says that we're at the end of our three month experiment with
> > cleaners. How do people feel about that?
>
> There's no explanation about what this experiment entailed, nor does it
> answer my question of did the cleaners ever actually show up and partake
> in the act of cleaning.
>
>
Yeah this was at the end of a 1.5 hour meeting, so we were all a little
punch drunk. I think most of this discussion could/should probably go on
next week, when the 6 month proposal is up for consensus. Really we just
kicked around what the language should be. Six month was just my proposal
essentially for working out how we can make consensus items that slowly go
from time-delimited, which is what we generally do for consensus items to
get around the problem of "how do we turn off a bad idea by consensus, when
if we leave it unbounded someone could block to *prevent* someone thing
from being stopped". My idea is to double the time period each time so we
can move from short-term to long-term. I think it's pretty flexible though
-- another idea was to leave it for another 3 months and then restart
again, so that we can check to see if it really made a difference.


> > Shannon says it seems cleaner.
>
> Noisebridge looks like Noisebridge looks like the festering hackerspace
> it's always been. If someone were to tell me that we just spent greater
> than [insert sum of money here] of Noisebridge funds on someone to clean
> the space, I would laugh to hard I'd crap myself, then leave the crap on
> the floor of the space, because it really doesn't look any cleaner
> (especially after I've pooped on it).
>
> I see no minutes on what's been cleaned.
>

That's because we didn't talk about it.

>
> > It is felt that we should put it up for consensus for a further period,
> > this time for six months.
>
> My response would be that this can't pass for consensus until someone
> can outline what cleaning has happened, how much it cost us, and (key
> point here) how that's improved the space over not paying a cleaners for
> cleaning service.
>
>
That's what the discussion will be about next week. Putting something up
for consensus is a fairly straightforward act, intended on getting the
discussion ready for the next week.


> > My brief foray into the mind of the objective reader would indicate that,
> > between these lines, the average enlightened polymath may deduce: a) we
> > just finished our experiment, b) yes indeed we paid for cleaners, c) the
> > next step is to see if anyone wants to do this for another six months, d)
> > if you want more specific answers on this, it would be easy to either
> email
> > Will and edit the notes yourself, or possibly don't tell me the notes
> suck
> > when I'm just into the last minutes of the fifth hour dealing with
> > Noisebridge stuff tonight, as it shakes my Spock-like calm and makes me
> > want to go DERP DERP DERP MY NAMES RUBIN DERP DERP DERP for the next few
> > paragraphs.
>
> The meeting minutes simply state that there was an experiment and no
> information about if that experiment contained actual paid for cleaning,
> which is why I emailed asking if this was the case.
>
> I would love to email Will except we have like half a dozen of them and
> the minutes don't detail which one. Additionally I think there were more
> people involved in the discussion of cleaning at the meeting than just
> Will, which is why I emailed the list.
>


It wasn't that detailed -- actually we had more detailed discussion about
the topic  in the social engineering meeting previous to the NB meeting,
but my notes on that suck even more than the NB meeting notes
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Social_Engineers Even I don't understand
what I wrote there.

Will is Will Sargent, who is I think the only Will, although one of many
Sargents. I try to follow Seth's pattern of not using full names in the
notes for privacy reasons, but we should probably at the very least link to
usernames on the wiki. He's https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Wsargent


Danny I'm sorry I publicly stated that your notes were shit. Thanks for
> being the note taker, I appreciate it and hope that I can some day take
> as good of notes as you, and also look as dashing as you, and hold you,
> stare into your eyes, and tell you I...
>

You said they sucked, not that they were shit. Now I am very upset, and
need to held closely and comforted.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HurtComfortFic

Actually, at 1AM I was pissed, but now I am happy you spent this time
making constructive criticisms, and it has made me think more about how to
make the notes better. I am not going to fucking thank you though, you
horrible worm.



> > You're going to send me another link to porn in response to this aren't
> you?
>
> http://nburl.net/nbporn
>
> --
> Rubin
> rubin at starset.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20111116/790f6413/attachment.html>