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

[Ryan Rawson]

no one is seriously suggesting 'members only'.

Gian: the point of christina's original comment was that _everyone is
continuously trust assessing_ other people.  It's part of interacting
with others.  I think christina was more stating facts than
prescribing anti-dotes.

Rubin also has a good point too that you can't argue with some people
- some people can sleep at noisebridge but not others is hard to
explain to someone who is _really good_ at manipulating other people.

In the mean time, this thread is boring. Try to make it more dramay
but in a novel way - members only, ha!

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM, VonGuard <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>