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

[Al Sweigart]

Ack, that is:  I recall people being against the idea when they hear
it, but when couches have actually been removed people don't miss them
enough to complain.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>