[Noisebridge-discuss] Paid for cleaners, have they ever come by the space?
jim
jim at well.com
Wed Nov 16 20:00:21 UTC 2011
NB paid for cleaners? where did they clean?
when did they come? how come there's tons of
mouse turds on the floors near the walls?
who paid attention (i.e. who was s'posed to)?
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 11:43 -0800, Danny O'Brien wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list