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

[Gian Pablo Villamil]

The thing is, constant trust assessments require a non-trivial amount of effort, especially when we have lots of new people coming through.

The costs of constant assessment vs. benefits of radical inclusion don't balance out for me.

A members-only policy requires the trust assessment only once.

If I could see clearer benefits (to myself) of openness, I could change my mind.



On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:38 PM, Christina Olson <daravinne at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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
>> 
>>