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

[rachel lyra hospodar]

I am unwilling to tell people who are working on projects to leave the space
at any time and would rather break off my relationship with noisebridge than
support changing the way we function to require this.

We could try cultivating a situation where if you are not a member AND not
visibly hacking (how the hell do we police that?) then at midnight somebody
has to play asshole... honestly i'd like to see *someone who is regularly
there at that time* suggesting this is at all feasible or desireable because
my experience suggests otherwise.

R.

mediumreality.com
On Oct 14, 2011 10:40 AM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20111014/4fcb8de7/attachment-0003.html>