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

[Al Sweigart]

You said my track record at social engineering was poor, and I pointed
out examples of when it wasn't. The last time I brought up
members-only hours people seemed to be against it, so I dropped it. I
only bring it up now because Gian and Will brought it up again, and
the reasons people have on why they're against it I have ideas on how
we can mitigate them.

People will like some of my ideas and not like my other ideas. I can't
read people's minds so the only way I can find out what they think is
by discussing it. This is an issue that affects everyone and will
probably be lengthy, so email is going to be more inclusive than a
three hour meeting.

You said, "I am not burning bridges" but I didn't say that you were. I
said that I didn't think a proposal like this is a reason to burn
bridges over, and I only said that because you said you would rather
break off your relationship with noisebridge than support this change.
Please don't misinterpret my words.

A friend from out of town will be at the space tonight and I'll be
joining him there later this evening. I can also most likely make it
to the space sometime next week too if that works. We can talk then so
we don't dominate this email thread. I still want to hear from others.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >> >
>> >
>