[Noisebridge-discuss] a doorcode is now required to let people into noisebridge

[Jake]

It doesn't have to be me.  You are just as much a part of noisebridge as I 
am.  If you think it benefits noisebridge to put another sign explaining 
the keycode system, to eliminate theory 1 for example, you should not wait 
for me to do it.

I am focusing my energy on trying to spread awareness of the problems and 
steps I think we can take as a community to solve them, for example the 
consensus item coming up on tuesday to always require a code (except 
during events).

I have already put a lot of work into building both keypads and agitating 
others to develop software for them, as well as maintaining the 
infrastructure that runs it all.  I built the video periscope, and the 
full-duplex audio intercom, and I am working with others to create a 
"doorbell tamer" which will reduce the annoyingness of the doorbell 
without reducing its effectiveness.

I hope that others will actively participate in implementing better 
systems at noisebridge.

-jake

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, Naomi Most wrote:

> I was intimating that there are other likely explanations:
> 1) people didn't know the new procedure was in place, perhaps tried the buzz-in button and found it "didn't work" and so didn't bother with it anymore
> 
> 2) people knew about the procedure but found it too onerous (i.e. high friction) to complete the action, and so didn't bother (which dovetails with your
> theory, Jake)
> 
> If you're going to run this as a real experiment -- which I do hope you do -- you'll need to find ways of disambiguating the reasons why people do or
> don't complete an action.
> 
> The advantage of running this as a real experiment is that you will find it easier to convince people to leave the system in place. Assuming positive
> evidence, of course.
> 
> --Naomi
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, July 5, 2013, Jake wrote:
>       shannon,
>
>       your statement is not clear to me.  are you saying that the reason people did not type in their code (upstairs, to let people in) very much
>       was because they could see that there were people walking down the stairs to do it manually?  So they didn't bother using their code to do
>       it?
>
>       or are you saying that people were seen traversing the stairs to let people in, and that's how you know the logs show that few people used
>       the upstairs keypad to let people in (by typing a valid code)?
>
>       i was saying that the reason there were few instances of people using the upstairs keypad (with a valid code) to let people in was because
>       people with codes were tired of a lot of the people without codes coming in, and wanted to leave them on the street so that noisebridge could
>       return to its former glory.
>
>       -jake
>
>       shannon wrote:
>       The observed reason for this is that people were walking down the stairs to open the doors regularly.
>
>       On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>
>             last time there were not many examples of people using their code to let people in, but i suspect that is because a lot of people
>             who have codes are tired of a lot of the people without codes coming in.  So they prefer to ignore them.
> 
> 
>
>             On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Naomi Most wrote:
>
>              Cool.  I'm looking forward to seeing data on patterns of use.
> 
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>       Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>       https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
> 
> skype: nthmost
> 
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> 
>