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

Fri Oct 14 21:33:04 UTC 2011

I disagree with your position and believe you are misinterpreting what I
say. I invite you to come up with alternate solutions for the problem you
are trying to address. If you want to talk further about this issue, I
invite you to find me in person at noisebridge.  Perhaps at a Tuesday
meeting?

Maybe you missed it before, so I'll say it again. Radical inclusivity is a
fundamental part of what noisebridge is, and I believe this proposal is a
step away from that.

R.

mediumreality.com
On Oct 14, 2011 2:24 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think my track record has been pretty good. When there was a person
> living at Noisebridge for months last year, I was the one who brought
> it up and it was widely agreed that people living at the space was
> unacceptable. People were very disturbed by Patrick's behavior, but
> nobody really pushed to ban him from the space until I started pushing
> for it, and even then I was the one who had to put my name down on the
> actual consensus item to make sure banning him actually happened.
>
> I was unsure how people who respond when I started showing up at 7 in
> the morning and asking sleepers to not only sleep but to leave the
> space for a few hours (so they wouldn't just go back to sleep after I
> left, which is what happened in _every_ case when I didn't ask them to
> leave.) I thought that might be "playing asshole" too much. So I
> brought it up with the board & other members and they agreed with me.
> On some occasions people did get a little nasty with me when I woke
> them up, but the membership still backed me. In one case, a sleeper
> who had shouted at me in the morning later apologized for it. When I
> have to "play asshole" I try to still be polite but firm.
>
> In each of these occasions, most people seemed to be large agreement
> but nobody wanted to be the first to point it out. I think my attempts
> at engineering the social aspects of NB have been pretty mild: I want
> to talk about it first before do-acratically implementing things
> precisely to minimize drama. That's why I want to talk about the pros
> and cons of membership hours. I don't think, "it's too hard to
> implement" or "Al isn't a part of Noisebridge enough to suggest these
> things" are valid cons. Closing off the space to members-only is
> itself a valid con, but I think we can mitigate that by making it
> rather late. (Maybe even later if we can get people who are at the
> space at those times to help out.)
>
> Maybe there are other approaches to the sleeper problem? I wouldn't
> want to get rid of the couches, but I also want to solve this problem.
>
> -Al
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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/20111014/9d694d1a/attachment-0003.html>