[Noisebridge-discuss] Soceng tonight: some thinking on the Current Situation

[Kelly]

I'll be in the space this evening for policy wonks if anyone wants to
get in touch with me about this project.

-Kelly

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 21:33, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> So social engineering this evening concentrated on trying to define the problem
> we've been discussing on nb-discuss these past few aeons, listed the
> challenges, listed the aspects of Noisebridge we wanted to preserve, and then
> went through the classes of proposed solutions, and how much we liked them.
>
> What was the winner? The proposal we liked the most was putting into place a
> keycode system (probably Kelly's hot-tub matrix), but not losing the key and
> the buzzer for now -- and indeed a general encouragement to create as many
> interesting ways of getting into the place as possible. Once we see how those
> go as a temporary plan and see what the uptake is, the goal would be to turn
> off the buzzer, but that would only be after more discussion and
> experimentation.
>
> I'll pass over to Kelly who I think is going to lead this as a spun-off project.
>
> I'm not around for soceng next week, so feel free to use that meeting for this,
> though I think it's big enough to spin out on its own.
>
> The problem space
> =================
>
> We seem to be worried about:
>
> * Crazy people who come up and want to shoot everyone
> * Burglars with swag bags
> * Increased entropy in general (messiness, slacking instead of hacking)
> * The public image of Noisebridge as not safe and a bit skeevy
> * Some sort of uncool disaster
>
> Challenges to any solution
>
> * We are structure minimalists
> * No clear dividing line between good crazy and bad crazy
> * "Noisebridge is self-trolling and games ours own solutions"
> * Hard to disseminate knowledge
> * Hard to to enforce rules
>
> Proposed solutions
> ==================
>
> (Pluses and minuses are strawpoll votes, D = doacratically doable, C =
> would require consensus in meeting)
>
> D Improving self-policing through education ++++--
> (ie having more direct explanation and role-playing of throwing people
> out, to get over our natural reticence to do so)
>
> C A blanket access fee ++------
> (ie $10 to get in the place)
>
> D Always locking the top door ++-
> (people seemed to think this was okay in combination with something else)
>
> D Access code as supplementary system ++++++++-
> (Kelly's system was discussed in detail, but this applied to any access system.)
>
> C Access code as only system ++------
> (We really didn't want to depend on a high-tech system. Wanted the keys to stay)
>
> C Cutting the buzzer +++----
> (Maybe in the future, once another access system had emerged.)
>
> C Closing down at night ++----
> (That's to say, NB ends at 11PM say)
>
> C Members only at night ++++-
>
> C Cellphone entry only +----
> (Ie some sort of phone-door-opening triangle)
>
> D Temporary versions of all above +++++
> (Lots of support for trying stuff out, seeing what sticks)
>
> D Concentrating on individual +++++
> (Some support for working on preventing certain people, rather than
> just raising bar on access)
>
> C Greylists/Blacklists ++++
> (Some support for raising enforcement of Noisebridge's somewhat
> moribund greylits/blacklist proposal)