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

[Ryan Rawson]

what could possibly be a "minoritarian subject-positions" in the bay
area?  Or at noisebridge?

perhaps you need a trip to the midwest to remind yourself how bad it
is elsewhere.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Erik JM Schneider <eriktrips at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>