[Noisebridge-discuss] Are people okay with people sleeping at the Noisebridge space?

[Christina Olson]

> I thoroughly agree with this.

Cool, yay.

> I've put in my two cents before, I don't think radical openness will work.
> The group of people for whom Noisebridge is a useful resource is far greater
> than the number of people who are hackers working on cool projects. Letting
> anyone in means that inevitably the hackers will be outnumbered - even by
> well-meaning and well-behaved groups.
> I think we should *ONLY* let people into the space who we would be OK to see
> sleeping or napping in the space.

Buh? Nononononono.  You've missed my point entirely.  The point I am
trying to make is that we need to support a policy of radical
inclusionism by continually enacting trust-assessment of individuals,
by individuals, proportionate to how open we are.  Yes, radical
inclusionism and openness requires MORE INDIVIDUAL CRITICAL THINKING
AND SITUATIONAL JUDGEMENT CALLS than a regular rule based system where
we get to all sit on our asses and point at a list of rules.



On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Gian Pablo Villamil
<gian.pablo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thoroughly agree with this.
> As I see it, the problem isn't really sleeping at Noisebridge, it is people
> using Noisebridge as a crashpad. Sleeping overnight happens to be an
> indicator that this is taking place.
> I'm OK with naps. People get tired, and they need to sleep. For me, sleeping
> in a public space is a good indicator of the civic health of a place.
> I would not bother any of the NB members that I know or trust, even if it
> was clear they were sleeping overnight.
> I understand that a) our lease requires that we comply with city ordinances
> and b) those ordinances forbid residential use of the space. However,
> sporadic overnight sleeping does not necessarily imply residence.
> There are people who I would rather not see at NB, but if they have to be
> there, they might as well be sleeping. At least that way they're not
> stealing or pissing people off or ruining computers. The real solution isn't
> a ban on sleeping, the real solution is keeping untrustworthy people out of
> Noisebridge.
> I've put in my two cents before, I don't think radical openness will work.
> The group of people for whom Noisebridge is a useful resource is far greater
> than the number of people who are hackers working on cool projects. Letting
> anyone in means that inevitably the hackers will be outnumbered - even by
> well-meaning and well-behaved groups.
> I think we should *ONLY* let people into the space who we would be OK to see
> sleeping or napping in the space.
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Christina Olson <daravinne at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I thought a bit more about the ideas I put forth earlier, and a
>> component of tribalism, and maybe a more widely understandable concept
>> in general, is the concept of trust.  We consider this concept a lot
>> as members/participants of a hackerspace: trust in computer security,
>> trust in information collection, distribution and management, trust in
>> government and media, and most importantly, trust in each other.
>>
>> So, the discussion about sleeping at the space is a vehicle for a
>> bigger discussion that we keep having which is actually about trust
>> and how it relates to a radical inclusion atmosphere.  If we radically
>> include EVERYONE, we put everyone on a level playing field, and apply
>> the same amount of trust equally to everyone.  This is a warm fuzzy
>> goal we all hope can one day be applied safely in the world but in our
>> current reality it's kind of a dangerous thing.  An
>> "institutionalized" atmosphere of trusting everyone, or trusting no
>> one, leads to a situation where individuals can't trust each other,
>> and trying to artificially create the thing we call "sense of
>> community" breaks it down in the long run.  Trust is built over time,
>> through consistency in actions and situations.  We wouldn't wake Miloh
>> up if we saw him sleeping, why? Because we've seen him and talked to
>> him and formed a model of him in our heads.  His actions are
>> predictable, strongly trended towards positive towards the space and
>> the members who know him.  We TRUST him.  Some random person who walks
>> in for their first meeting, or attends one class, or comes in and
>> starts bothering people or stealing things, they are (you guessed it)
>> NOT TRUSTED.  They have to prove over time via actions and presence
>> that they can be trusted.
>>
>> Trust defines ingroups and outgroups.  Trusted networks have computers
>> that you can connect to without worrying about firewall restrictions;
>> similarly, trusted individuals are ones you can express more
>> vulnerabilities in front of. A state of trust carries with it
>> privileges endemic to the ingroup, and removing that state of trust
>> relegates the trustee to the outgroup.  This is a necessary social
>> function, which prevents humans with their current set of wetware,
>> from being either too vulnerable to the point of danger, or so closed
>> off that survival (formerly life-and-death, now social survival)
>> becomes impossible or extremely difficult.  Food and resources are
>> shared with trusted members of a group; the group members have proven
>> that they are contributors and not simply leeches that make the lives
>> of the other group members harder.
>>
>> All this abstraction is leading back to a specific response to Al.  I
>> believe that the trust model being applied to sleepers at noisebridge
>> is correct and valid, for the reason that it preserves and nurtures a
>> sense of community, and a subtle but necessary active and evolving
>> in-group/out-group state.  The extent to which Noisebridge opens
>> itself to all and practices radical inclusion leaves a few serious
>> vulnerabilities that are easily taken advantage of, which have been
>> experienced as theft, druggies and homeless people using the space as
>> crashspace, and strange people making community members feel
>> uncomfortable.  Keeping an unwritten, nebulous, movable and mutable
>> trust code will not only keep us a little safer and more tight knit,
>> it will incentivize people who want to become trusted and be part of
>> the community, and dissuade unsuitably-motivated outgroupers, and by
>> the way this is NOT WRONG and is a GOOD THING.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> 1. We absolutely should be okay with trusted community members taking
>> naps at the space because we know *they will not abuse this
>> privilege*, or any of the other privileges they accrue through
>> maintaining their trustability.  If they do things to degrade their
>> own trustability they should be handled individually and accordingly.
>>
>> 2. We should also feel free to wake up people who are NOT trusted
>> community members and ask them who they are and why they're here.
>> Some people will give satisfactory answers; some will not.  This is
>> where you all have to put on your Big Kid Thinking Caps and use good
>> judgement on the fly.
>>
>> And yes, I think you all who want to make rules for dumb shit like
>> sleeping on couches are intellectually lazy and don't want to bother
>> to do the critical thinking required to keep your community safe.  Eat
>> it.
>>
>> I disagree with Duncan's reply that was sent before i finished typing
>> this one, that there is "no problem to be solved"; however I think the
>> problem to be solved is not "should people be allowed to sleep at
>> noisebridge" but rather "how do we constructively and comfortably
>> integrate two apparently conflicting concepts: a policy of radical
>> inclusion designed to draw in new members, and maintaining a strong,
>> tightly knit community with a high level of trust".  Sleeping, kitchen
>> use and cleanliness, resource usage, theft, harassment, signs,
>> welcoming committees, the doorbell, are all subtopics of this
>> continued internal debate.  There's no magic bullet, guys.  We all
>> have to keep practicing trust and trustability.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Rubin, I want minimize drama, which is exactly why I'd like people to
>> > talk about this and try to resolve it instead of it being a perennial
>> > conflict like it's been. Right now it's not about a specific person,
>> > which is a perfect time to talk about it. This way it doesn't
>> > degenerate into "I like/dislike person X, which is why sleeping at the
>> > space is fine/a problem."
>> >
>> > I don't want to bring it up at a meeting because it'll probably be a
>> > long conversation and I didn't want to force everyone to sit through
>> > it (or force people to chose between staying at a two hour meeting or
>> > going home and being excluded.) Email's great for this kind of
>> > discussion: people don't have to immediately respond to everything and
>> > only the people who want to participate do.
>> >
>> > And from the number of people on this thread, people apparently do
>> > want to talk about this. A few people are saying "sleeping overnight
>> > is not a problem" and others are saying  "even napping is a problem",
>> > but the way the issue is, if we shut down any discussion about it,
>> > it's essentially giving the sleepers a free pass except for the rare
>> > occasions when the Noisebridge-is-not-for-nappers folks are there to
>> > wake people up.
>> >
>> > I want to hear people's reasons why they think napping is okay because
>> > I don't think there are any valid reasons (but maybe I'm wrong.) What
>> > I don't want to hear is people saying "let's stop talking about it" or
>> > "it's not a problem and this discussion should end". There are people
>> > who have a problem with it and it's not fair to ignore their
>> > complaints by trying to get them to shut up.
>> >
>> > I'm against napping in the space, but I don't want to get my way
>> > because I was able to badger enough people into submission or get a
>> > loud enough group on my side. I want to listen to other people and
>> > encourage them to speak their mind. It's clear there's no consensus on
>> > this, but maybe we can figure out some kind of middle-ground besides
>> > people continually bugged about the sleepers and the sleepers
>> > continually bugged about being woken up or told to leave.
>> >
>> > It doesn't need to be resolved ASAP, it just needs to stop being put
>> > off. So let's talk about it.
>> >
>> > -Al
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Just Duncan <justduncan at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> AMEN!
>> >>
>> >> Very well put, Rubin!
>> >>
>> >> To those whose view of Noisebridge is primarily through the discussion
>> >> list,
>> >> know that Noisebridge is excellent.
>> >>
>> >> As someone who is a regular part of the Noisebridge community, people
>> >> sleeping here is not a problem.  Culturally, the community here handles
>> >> things quite well using thoughtful, situational ethics and is strongly
>> >> protective of the space, the community, and each other.  Noisebridge
>> >> works
>> >> and doesn't need chaperones or self-appointed draconian authoritarians
>> >> whose
>> >> sole purpose for a visit to Noisebridge is to tell people what to do.
>> >> If
>> >> people in the space need help, we have the new 311 system on the red
>> >> payphone to get assistance and it works brilliantly, when needed.
>> >>
>> >> Unless Al's answer to Rubin's question is "yes", let's let this thread
>> >> die a
>> >> drama-less death.
>> >>
>> >> This thread is in no way relevant to Noisebridge at present.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Why are we having an email discussion about this?
>> >>>
>> >>> Al: Have you been to Noisebridge recently, has someone sleeping in the
>> >>> space offended you?
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there an apparent problem that needs attention ASAP?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Rubin
>> >>> rubin at starset.net
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>