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

[Johny Radio]

On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> getting people to both take responsibility for who
> they let in.... responsibility depends strongly on being able to see who wants to come up

Danny, with all due respect (since you have a beard), I'm not sure it's realistic or fair or effective to ask people to "take responsibility" for who they let into the space. 

I DO think it's realistic to ask people to take responsibility for who they INVITE. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about buzzing people in. 

You're proposing a conflicting pair of directives:
   -a strong obligation to let people in. 
   -a strong obligation to take responsibility for their bad behavior. 

Its unfair-- People come to Noisebridge to hack and make, not be security officers. You gave us a buzzer-- don't penalize us for using it. Don't expect us to evaluate the character of the person we're buzzing in, or invest the time required to do so. We're busy hacking!

Asking us to "take responsibility" for who we buzz in is not a system, it's management by fear-- fear that my reputation will be somehow damaged if I accidentally admit a bad person. My response would simply be to buzz in no one, at all, ever, lest my reputation be damaged. Which undermines what you called a "strong obligation to let people in". 

Fear is not conducive to a steady flow of new users. If a cool new maker is invited, but then she cannot enter on her first visit because the person upstairs doesn't know her, that's going to leave her with a pretty crappy impression of Noisebridge, and she might not return.  

Frequent users routinely buzz in countless people, the vast majority of whom are legit. I think it's unrealistic to expect people to judge the potential shadiness of somebody. Are we going to profile strangers on the basis of clothing? Phrenology? It's vague, impractical, and unfair to the person seeking entry. 

I think a more realistic approach is a variety of vetting methods:
   -invitations to appropriate individuals and groups (invitations made by any member or registered community user). 
   -Email requests for entry. 
   -Accept in-person requests at Tuesday meetings. 

Plus various verification or authorization methods for said invitees:
   -keys (that can't easily be copied). 
   -Noisebridge ID cards (that can't easily be faked), and maybe also 1-day guest-passes. 
   -key-codes (changed regularly, new one emailed to registered users). 
   -verbal password  (changed regularly, new one emailed to registered users). 
    -require one-time registration or every-time sign-in by non-members. 

Plus strategies for handling bad actors:
   -photos by the entrance. 
   -revoke their verification/key/codes/ID card/ change the password. 

-johny radio 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130117/d85b564a/attachment-0003.html>