[Noisebridge-discuss] desktop computer at welcome desk location

jim jim at well.com
Tue Sep 6 23:39:48 UTC 2011 


    more thanks for clarity. 

    as to [1], the idea of throwing a gravitational singularity 
into the core suggests having someone like miloh or al or mitch 
or yourself or ... utter a tho't out loud, maybe in a
meaningful-sounding tone of voice. 

    my experience in other communities has led me to believe 
that the core of any group is from 7 to 15 percent. if the core 
is generally happy, it is out toward the 15 percent range. if 
the core is happy, another 35 percent of the community can be 
occasionally enlisted to help out in various ways at various 
times. 
    if the core is unhappy, it drops toward 7 percent and can 
enlist a smaller percentage of the community less often to 
help out. 
    note that it's unreasonable to expect to get more than 50 
percent of the community to help out in any way: i.e. 50 
percent of the community floats on the work of the rest. 
    the core is constantly shifting. codifying the core is 
not possible and has a demoralizing effect. being mildly 
welcoming and generally happy is the only way to attract 
people into the vortex. of course, it's not clear when any 
new personages have joined the core, not for a while, anyway, 
just as sometimes core people kind of fade away slowly, 
unnoticeably at first. 
    like gardening, nurturing the core is an ongoing business. 
the best metric is the sense of happiness in dealing with 
others. 

    my experiences at noisebridge confirm my beliefs, albeit 
in a fuzzy way. 





On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:55 -0700, Danny O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:40 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >    thanks for the clear response. i think your reaction is
> > mistaken, at least in the terms of my thinking.
> >    i believe the core exists already, always has. what's
> > missing is clear understanding of who's in it and at what
> > time and how the core changes over time. note that there's
> > no need for formality--we don' need no steenking bayjess,
> > just recognition and acceptance of who cares: that can be a
> > big help in communication, i.e. the impediment to working
> > together is unfamiliarity with each other, i.e. a kind of
> > insecurity that comes with uncertainty.
> 
> Yes, this all makes sense -- I guess my problem is that I've ended up
> codifying a core, and implying that someone who isn't in that list
> should use them to consult with, whereas we should be trying to suck
> more people into the core.[1]
> 
> The other thing we've been talking about is how to foster do-and-tell
> rather than just act do-acractically into people's default habits. We
> don't document, and it's actually *really* hard to document, or find
> documentation.
> 
> Bringing this around to the actual thread, what should have happened
> is that if someone messed with that computer, they need to somehow
> flag it. And that's a hard problem to get people to do that, unless we
> make it really really easy. And "fun".
> 
> d.
> 
> [1] Possibly by sending in a gravitational singularity into the heart
> of the core.
> >    in yet other words, encouraging people to take action
> > themselves can be lubricated if the people practively talk
> > to each other in advance of and with respect to situations
> > that may need group action (e.g. cleaning the floors, dishes,
> > and toilets, or putting away tools...), as well as situations
> > that need a quicker coordinated response, such as fire or
> > obnoxious drunks or someone gets sick or....
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:07 -0700, Danny O'Brien wrote:
> >> I think having a "core" is a really bad idea, and am far more
> >> sympathetic to Jake's idea of encouraging people to take action
> >> themselves. Much as I'm enjoying hacking on the 311 solution,
> >> something about it seemed not quite right, and I think Jake's email
> >> puts its finger on what it is.
> >>
> >> I honestly would like to know more about why people didn't eject Jay
> >> from the space. I must admit that it was scary the first time I felt I
> >> had to do it, and afterwards I was a bit more scared by how easy it
> >> turned out to be, and how much I wanted to START THROWING EVERYBODY
> >> OUT.
> >>
> >> Anyway, meeting is tonight at 8PM, so we can talk about this endlessly!
> >>
> >> And just to remind everyone, before meeting, at 7pm, we have the
> >> social engineering group, whose brief is to come up with technical
> >> solutions to social problems. I'm sure we'll be talking about this a
> >> little then.
> >>
> >> d.
> >>
> >> (Oh, and for everybody reading this who is assuming it's like the
> >> Terrordome at NB, right now, it really isn't.)
> >>
> >> d.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:56 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >    this brings to my mind the idea of a "core", a group
> >> > of people who recognize in themselves and in each other
> >> > a commitment to noisebridge and a willingness to do work
> >> > to help noisebridge survive for its mission (hacking,
> >> > promoting hacking, cross-fertilization of ideas among
> >> > various arts and disciplines).
> >> >    danny is working on a 311 call system that seems to
> >> > want a set of core people who'll volunteer to respond.
> >> >    the recent episode(s) with drunks suggests the need
> >> > for a set of core people who can quickly act with
> >> > confidence to respond to egregiously unexcellent behavior.
> >> >
> >> >    seems to me useful to promote the idea of a core group
> >> > as an informal social structure with, of course, no formal
> >> > powers and no particular mandate other than to try to help
> >> > noisebridge generally (after all, it seems obnoxious to
> >> > set up some kind of excellence police group, and there are
> >> > other runaway possibilities such a group might spin out on).
> >> >    essentially a core group, in my mind, is simply aware
> >> > of their common interests and can identify each other as
> >> > similarly aware and willing to act together to help out.
> >> >
> >> >    i hope some members and non-members will consider this
> >> > suggestion, which i offer in a doocratic and non-consensus-
> >> > requiring spirit.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 00:39 -0700, Jake wrote:
> >> >> does anyone know who set up the desktop computer at the registration desk
> >> >> location, right when you walk into noisebridge?  The computer is locked
> >> >> with a password so you can only log in as a guest.
> >> >>
> >> >> This means one can't even plug in a FTDI serial cable.
> >> >>
> >> >> The password hint is "di" but all the obvious guesses were tried.
> >> >> If i had my password wiper CD i would use it but I don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, the computer had a problem where it would short out its power supply
> >> >> when you breathed, and it seems to be fixed now... so, password?
> >> >>
> >> >> -jake
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list