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

[Al Sweigart]

It would require buy-in from the community, which is why it's
something we'd need to talk about and agree on rather than just
implement do-acratically. At ten to midnight or whenever, members
would announce that Noisebridge is closing up to guests in ten
minutes, thank them for coming by, and tell them it'll open up to the
public at 7am, and also mention the membership binder and the process
on becoming a member. (If we do this do-acractically, there'll just be
nightly arguments between members trying to close up and members
telling people they can stay.)

If the membership fee is too much for them, they can put their
membership on hiatus after becoming a member. (The reason people
haven't done that before now is because there's no difference between
hiatus members and non-members, except that the former has passed the
membership process.) Also, to give people time to become members, we
could make this effective four or five weeks after we agree to it.

I think this would single-handedly fix 90% of the sleeper problem (in
my experience of waking people up in the morning, it's almost always
non-members) and also encourage people to become members. I'm not sure
what percentage of the thefts happen at night, but I'm fairly sure
they aren't done by members or the regulars (who would become members
at this point).

-Al

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
> This is actually a serious question, not (merely) a rhetorical device.
> We could simply say, X-Y times are "members only", with no enforcement,
> and let it self-police as we do with Be Excellent.  In that case, all
> the people who are excellent, and are not members, would comply, and not
> come during those hours, to our loss.  People who are willing to steal
> things, leave messes behind, and/or sleep there overnight, are not going
> to comply voluntarily.  Such a rule would require enforcement.  How
> could we do that?
>
> Rachel
>
> On 10/13/11 3:34 PM, Andy Isaacson wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 01:44:31PM -0700, 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).
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that you're thinking of resigning, Jonathan.
>>
>> I'm in favor of continuing Noisebridge's open access policy.  I don't
>> think that changing to "members only" (I agree with Rachel, how the heck
>> would that work!?!?!) would improve the space.
>>
>> -andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>