[Noisebridge-discuss] Are people okay with people sleeping at the Noisebridge space?
jim
jim at well.com
Fri Oct 14 19:43:04 UTC 2011
well said.
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 23:28 -0700, Gian Pablo Villamil 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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list