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

[Jake]

Johnny Radio said:
  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".

yes, it's true.  People who let other people into noisebridge should take 
responsibility for that action of letting people in.  If nobody is willing 
to let a person in, and that person has no Key or Door Code or Android App 
to let themselves in, or a Friend inside they can call, then someone has 
to take responsibility for them.  Or they don't get to come in.

It's true.  If nobody inside is willing to take responsibility for 
granting physical access to the space to a person without access 
credentials, after talking to them on the intercom or seeing them on 
camera, they might not get into the space.

If people want to access noisebridge and are not eligible for a door code, 
they will need to get to know the people who will be answering the door 
buzzer.

It's true that your reputation is on the line if you let someone in who 
makes trouble.  If not the person opening the door, then who?

Soon it will not be possible to open the door without either using your 
door code (at a keypad instead of the DOOR button, or android app, or web 
page) or going physically down the stairs to open the door.  If you don't 
know enough about the person asking you for entry to want to let them in,
then don't.

We need to acknowledge the fact that if nobody is willing to vouch for 
someone wanting to come in, and that person is unable to introduce 
themselves well enough to gain that trust, then they shouldn't come in.

-jake