[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge-discuss Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17

[Casey Callendrello]

On 1/17/13 8:21 AM, Danny O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:47:07AM -0800, Johny Radio wrote:
>> Jake wrote:
>>
>>> am planning to install a two-way audio system
>> How's that different than the working intercom we have now?
>>
>>   I used it today to ask someone to identify themselves. They responded simply "I'm here". Sometimes legit users don't want to ID themselves.
>>
>> With all this talk of tighter entry controls, I have to ask how would I gain entry in such a scenario, if it existed 2 years ago when I started coming? I don't even remember anymore how I heard about Noisebridge, but I was what a lone maker who came in off the street.
>>
>> Answer: Noisebridge should continue, even expand, ways that any legit person can enter without pain or red tape. Eg Mitch should keep handing out keys to people at conferences, cuz they are pre-vetted.
>>
> Well, there's two ideas here: the idea of being able to see who the hell
> is coming up, and getting people to both take responsibility for who
> they let in.
>
> Our problem so far has been that no matter how much we fix the first
> thing, we haven't really had much buy-in for the second. And even when
> people do take responsibility, they feel the only thing they have to go
> on is what people look like, which a) isn't a great way to do this, and
> b) makes them feel guilty and uncomfortable. But the second idea, of
> responsibility, depends strongly on being able to see who wants to come
> up, because as soon as somebody is in the space, it's *really* hard to
> be brave enough to chase them out.
>
> I think that good training on how to be responsible door-opener, which
> includes making clear that there's a strong obligation to let people in,
> and not just determine things from an idea of "sketchiness" or just
> refuse to let new people in, will make sure that we don't just not let
> the next Johny Radio in. (Not that I'm saying you look sketchy, Johny!)
>
> A couple of other thoughts: I really like the idea of the
> number-wielders as a useful intermediary between Random Noisebridge
> Visitor and member. And I think that we are probably going to need a
> list of pictures of people who need to come to meeting rather than being
> let in. We don't have many of these, but we do have them, and I think
> that it would help to encourage people to default to letting people in
> if they have a list of people they shouldn't.
>
> d.
>

The number distribution process has been a lot like our key distribution 
process - supremely ad hoc. In general, it's been my experience that key 
copying, with the notable exception of Mitch's activities, has been 
pretty minimal. From one perspective, this makes sense. Physical key 
possession is essentially irrevocable, and should therefore be subject 
to some sort of vetting. However, code revocation is simple and effective.

We have a huge class of regulars who have no reliable method of access 
to the space save the doorbell. This was made obvious to me yesterday, 
when a gentleman who (allegedly) has an associate subscription via 
PayPal had the public gate code he knew revoked.

I'm proposing that the secretary or someone appointed by him create a 
gate code for everyone with an "associate-class" subscription, perhaps 
after a month. I think associates should expect access to the space with 
a minimum of hassle.

--c.