[Noisebridge-discuss] Access control & Safety, both personal and general space.

[Jonathan Lassoff]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Gopiballava Flaherty
<gopiballava at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, I'm not a member, and thus may be misunderstanding things, but the goals seem very ambiguous and nebulous. Without consensus on who should be able to do what, everybody will be confused.
>
> 1. Is there a clear way that people are declared persona non grata? Is there a clear way for that to change? (ie: who can decide to let them in / babysit them / etc?) I don't think that *any* access control system is going to help if the situation is, "Many people would really rather they not be at NB."
>
> 2. I think that people who are brand new to NB and who have only read about the place online should either be let in by a person who physically greets them at the door, or perhaps if they're 37337 enough they can h4x0r their way in. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with a total stranger not being able to get in if there is nobody upstairs
>
> Here's a thought for the door buzzing in: Camera down below. You can buzz in from a laptop inside NB, but only the bottom door. The top door is only openable if you have credentials or by a person physically opening it. This means that the entrant is virtually required to interact in some way with a person. You can easily ask, "hey, is this your first time here?" "No, this is Mitch, I forgot my key, are *you* new here?" :)
>
> 3. I do like the idea of some sort of chain of trust access control. It should be easy to revoke credentials. But then it comes back to the question, who shall bell the cat?^W^W^W revoke the credentials?

In the "hot tub" model, I think Noisebridge would just have to come to
a consensus that it's time to "reset", rather than banning specific
folks. Users would have to redistribute the new code or key, and just
be more careful about who they've giving it to.
Example:

  - Rob 3.0 continually defecates into random boxes at 2169, and keeps
getting caught. He refuses to leave or stop.
  - NoiseBridge decides (though an attempt at consensus) to try and
"ban" Rob 3.0.
  - N number of sympathizers feel that Rob 3.0 has been unduly
wronged, and start defecating into boxes in support.
  - 2169 turns into a real shit show.
  - The Noisebridge membership decides (through some mechanism,
consensus or otherwise) that's it's time to "hot tub".
  - The code is reset, and redistributed to the board, who in-turn
distribute it to members and those whom they trust to be "excellent"
guests.
  -- Those guests, in-turn, can further distribute the code; having
the code be simple to copy would be core to the trust model.
  - Hopefully, Rob 3.0 and the poop squad is rooted out and they don't
get the new code.

The advantage of this, I think is that it allows a social system (much
closer to trust, in reality) to demonstrate policy, rather than a
one-size-fits-all system.

I imagine that others can sympathize with the feeling of "I really
dislike that jerk's behavior, but I don't want to spend 30 minutes to
an hour trying to convince them that they're being unexcellent and get
them to stop. I just want to keep hacking."
I feel that way quite often, as of late.

--j