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

[Al Sweigart]

If the only problem is that someone would be needed to, as you oddly
put it, "play asshole" then I could volunteer for that. Actually,
implementing that part is not only feasible but it's the easiest part
of this suggestion.

The hard part is that I would need the backing of the community so
that I don't have to get into nightly arguments with people who say
that Noisebridge isn't closing down. I'll only get that if we talk
about this and come to a decision as a group. There might still be a
fuss some nights, but being able to say that it isn't just me
do-acratically closing up Noisebridge for the night but this is what
the membership decided adds a lot of weight.

I'd only have to do regularly for a few weeks, then it becomes just
another part of Noisebridge culture and other people can make the
announcement. If we miss it some nights, that's not going to be a big
deal because by then the people who come to Noisebridge regularly
expecting a place to crash will have realized that that isn't a
reliable option anymore.

Change seems scary at first because we have a lot of wild speculation
about how it'll destroy everything we like about the space, but
Noisebridge will still be Noisebridge. I don't see a reason why we
have to be as conservative as we are.

Rachel, I'd hate to see you leave over something like this because you
make a lot of valuable contributions to the space. I don't think this
is something to burn bridges over.

-Al

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>