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

[Al Sweigart]

I don't want to stray too much from the topic of sleepers, so maybe we
could talk about members-only proposal stuff in a new thread? (The
thefts of expensive stuff from Noisebridge in the last year is
definitely a problem that should be addressed, maybe with memebrs-only
hours or something else.)

Getting rid of the couches is a fantastic idea. I recall people being
against the idea when they hear it, but I don't think the couches add
that much to the space in the way of getting work/projects done.

It might not entirely address the sleeper issue, but I do think it
would cut it down where it wouldn't be such a big problem as it's
been.

-Al



On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Gian Pablo Villamil
<gian.pablo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm seriously suggesting "members only"! :)
> NYCR is run that way, with a weekly open night, and it hasn't gotten in the
> way of a diverse membership, or of people doing cool stuff. What it HAS done
> is that stuff doesn't get stolen, and no-one gives a shit if someone naps in
> the space, or pulls an occasional all-nighter. If someone really cool rocks
> up that can't afford dues, they can get a "scholarship" so to speak, but
> they still go through the membership assessment.
> To Christina's comment, you are constantly trust assessing NEW people. Once
> you get to know someone, you don't have to do it anymore (or at least you
> don't have to do it continuously). Believe me, I've been in communities
> where establishing trust was extremely important, and taken very seriously.
> It takes effort. You don't do it for just anybody. Having to constantly
> monitor your environment and ask yourself if the person next to you is going
> to steal your laptop is a real bummer.
> That said, things DO seem to be working generally well at Noisebridge these
> days. There are interesting projects going on. The Makerbots are working,
> and have spawned. Cool people turn up to interesting events. I really don't
> care if someone has a nap there. (I'd rather my stuff didn't get stolen, but
> I've taken other measures around that.)
>
> 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
>
>