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

[rachel lyra hospodar]

If the space was members only I never would have started coming around, and
the same is true for many people that I have spoken with. I think the
openness is crucial for lowering the bar of entry for hacking. Otherwise
people will be all "oh, I'm not a hacker, that must not be for me" and our
usership will become far less diverse.

Going members-only is the LAZY way to solve the trust problem.

mediumreality.com
On Oct 13, 2011 12:04 PM, "Gian Pablo Villamil" <gian.pablo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20111013/f72c0b7e/attachment-0003.html>