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

VonGuard vonguard at gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 19:20:08 UTC 2011


Yeah.... gonna have to say I'd block any move for going members only. I'm
sure others would show up to block anything of the sort too.
On Oct 13, 2011 12:15 PM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111013/10860c26/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list