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

[Erik JM Schneider]

This was supposed to go to the list the first time but I forget that
gmail does not send replies to the list unless you ask it very nicely.
Annoying, that. Apologies to Will for barging in on his
non-group-related mailbox, if any.
I am not going to bother to correct my grammar this time, either:

I am against members-only hours for the sllightly selfish reason that
there is no way I could afford to be a member at NB, even at the
"starving hacker" rate, but I would like to be able to go there to
work at whatever unusual hour I might be conscious, which I do
occasionally as things are now.

Philosophically I tend to fall on the side of openness and inclusion
as well, but I have no concrete ideas at the moment as to how to deal
with the problematic aspects of said openness, although given the
amount of ridicule this discussion has drawn simply for being floated,
I don't get the idea that there is a burning need to make a decision
right now between closing NB off to outsiders or letting people
continue to come in and be allowed to stay if they behave reasonably.
I do think that exclusionary practices generally result in an
homogeniety that can be reassuring to the members while feeling
hostile and closed off to outsiders. I also suspect that interesting
and unusual ideas are more likely to be brought up in a community that
remains open than in one that closes its doors for a large proportion
of its operating hours.

And as an occupier of several minoritarian subject-positions,
exclusion exasperates me at the gut level. I think risk management is
usually preferable to absolute security, and I don't think the
discussion on the list has yet run through all possible solutions to
the risks in question here: sleeping and stealing, if I am reading
correctly. Are there others? Are they problems that need urgent
solutions or can they be deliberated for some time? Is it possible to
approach these and other situations with a practical mindset rather
than a regulatory one--that is, with an eye toward establishing
possible routes of action, which are flexible but uncertain, rather
than prescriptive rules, which are reliable but not tolerant of
exceptional circumstances?



On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 14:43, Liz Henry <liz at bookmaniac.org> wrote:
> I really like our radical inclusion and openness. It's part of why I
> come to the space and support it with regular donations.  It makes me
> really proud to be part of Noisebridge.
>
> I like the couches and like to lie down to work sometimes.  If people
> really want to get rid of them though I understand.
>
> We could post up some resources for places to stay by the couches and
> the door/elevator.
>
> If someone is disruptive or scary, we should go ahead and ban them
> without fussing too much about it. They could come to a meeting to ask
> to be let back. Why not keep the openness (which works well most of the
> time) and be willing to ban a little more often?
>
> The intermittent thefts are a problem but honestly they seem less of a
> problem than they could be. I think lockers would be a fine idea, though
> we would need to develop some way to keep their use to people who are
> more or less currently coming to the space, and though someone may pick
> their locks.
>
> By the way Al, things have been pretty nice and very active and friendly
> every time I've been in the space lately. You might give it a shot! I
> hadn't realized till recently that there is something of a surge around
> 11pm or midnight when people come in to hack on stuff.  I certainly felt
> welcome and comfortable late at night earlier this week.
>
>
>
> - Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/13/11 1:48 PM, Rachel McConnell wrote:
>> Jon, Gian, anyone: do you have any ideas for how to enforce a
>> members-only policy, should we decide to try it?  The only one I've ever
>> heard is, stop answering the doorbell.  Otherwise I think you have to
>> depend on everyone to be a door-person and ask for the incoming person's
>> ... membership card?  How would it work?
>>
>> Everyone who's against members-only, let's at least hear their ideas!
>> Even if we choose not to make this change, the discussion is valuable.
>>
>> Rachel M
>>
>> On 10/13/11 1:44 PM, Jonathan Foote wrote:
>>> 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"! :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I am as well. As are a lot of other people who have resigned out of
>>> exasperation (I'm close).
>>>
>>> Don't get rid of the couches. A space without a comfortable place to
>>> hang out is not a place I want to visit, and I miss the ones that are
>>> gone.
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------
> Liz Henry
> liz at bookmaniac.org
> http://bookmaniac.org
>
> "Without models, it's hard to work; without a context, difficult to
> evaluate; without peers, nearly impossible to speak." -- Joanna Russ
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



-- 
Erik JM Schneider, PhD
blog.eriktrips.com
eriktrips at gmail.com