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

Fri Oct 14 21:03:21 UTC 2011

Maybe you find it odd that I think it would be an asshole move to kick
people out at midnight, because you are rarely there at midnight to sample
the culture at that time.  I disagree with your guess at the way things will
go down; your track record of predicting how people will respond to your
attempts at social engineering is poor.

I am not burning bridges, but trying to make it clear how fundamental I
believe radical inclusivity is to Noisebridge. It is part of what we do, and
it is part of why I am here.

R.

mediumreality.com
On Oct 14, 2011 1:49 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20111014/33da6def/attachment-0003.html>