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

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Sun Jul 7 21:08:57 UTC 2013


True, true.

I want to state here for the record that I think this is a good project. I
may not believe (as a prediction) that it will help, but I want to see what
happens, and I want to see that it's been done as well as it can be done.
And I'm fully prepared to change my mind if it turns out my belief has been
wrong.

I'm glad you're putting so much time into bringing this up at the meetings.
The door is not just a material item; it's a cultural artifact that changes
the social dynamic. You know this; I'm stating it to assert that I
appreciate the fanfare around it. It's important.

I am right now thinking of ways to improve the experiment. Most of the ways
I can think of involve much more invasive tracking than most people would
be comfortable with, though. I don't want to put a webcam up, for example,
only to have it torn down in 24 hours, which is what I would expect to
happen. That's not my last idea of course. :)

--Naomi


On Sunday, July 7, 2013, Jake wrote:

> 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<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
>>
>>

-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130707/6da1e7ef/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list