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

[rachel lyra hospodar]

There is no real way to enforce sometimes members only hours, except through
the kind of "you're not supposed to be here/be doing that" pissing contest
that you have described having with people who are sleeping. Only then, it
would have to happen every night.

I propose we throw out all remaining couches.

mediumreality.com
On Oct 13, 2011 12:43 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding the "no one is seriously suggesting members-only", sarcasm
> can be kind of hard to pick up on over text sometimes. But it seems
> that most people are against members-only. A few months ago I
> suggested members-only hours after midnight or such, because it would
> be an easy way to get the crashers out the door rather then rather
> than coming in at 7am (and encourage people to become members). The
> obvious downside is that non-members would be excluded, and pretty
> much everyone thought that was way too much cost than benefit.
>
> I'm open to other ideas though, if people have them. Even ones that
> seem (maybe only at first) like not good ideas.
>
> -Al
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/a72bdf1e/attachment-0003.html>