[Noisebridge-discuss] Response to Rebase Notes
leif at synthesize.us
Thu Jun 27 01:08:08 UTC 2013
[long email is long; thanks for reading]
[to anyone who doesn't think this is a long email: please reconsider]
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 04:29:28PM -0700, Johny Radio wrote:
> leif: NB is not going to be amenable to NOT being open to the public.
> -JR: Yes, that's supposed to be on the "Things we will not
> change" list. But does Leif mean temporary, or permanent? A
> temporary closure of any public space for renovation etc. is
> reasonable. If someone is "dependent" on the space for survival such
> that a two-week closure will cause them grief, is that NB's problem?
To be clear: I *am* in favor of establishing a consensus to be "closed"
for a week or two in the near future, where closed means noisebridge is
only open for people to implement consensed PFAs (proposals for
Several of the current proposals are things that would ordinarily be
silly to ask for consensus about (like cleaning the space); the reason
for making PFAs about them is to make explicit that they're valid
reasons for being at the space while it is at runlevel 6 (rebooting).
> leif: everyone's empowered to ask ppl to leave.
> -JR: Terrible process, turns anyone into a self-appointed bully.
> People have been asked to leave for no good reason-- no consistency
> in criteria. Many do not want to deal with the confrontation.
> DOCENTS should handle it.
I like the scheduled docents idea (but not the name "red shirts" or
wearing a red shirt) and agree docents should be willing to handle
asking people to leave when necessary, but I think it is important that
everyone remains empowered to ask people to leave and return to a
When I asked someone to leave the other day, I considered asking Shannon
to be involved (as he was on his docent shift then) but he was busy
giving some new people a tour so I decided not to interrupt him.
I don't think the "asked to leave" custom that has evolved at NB is
terrible at all; if/when people are asked to leave for no good reason
they are welcome to bring it to the attention of the rest of the
community via attending the meeting or writing to the mailing list (or
having someone else do so on their behalf). The extent to which the
range of available options for recourse is communicated varies somewhat
("you can come to the weekly tuesday meeting" is typical), but as long
as it is communicated I don't think this is a terrible process.
> leif: TechShop has an awesome waiver. If you want to work in a place
> like that, go there.
> -JR: What waiver? Is leif against improving NB?
Obviously. *rolls eyes*
> leif: How would you distribute access?
> -JR: Remove the buzzer, hand out MORE keys and codes. Any
> "approved" user can hand out 'public' codes, any member can give
> private codes and keys. Public codes can be shared with many, and
> revoked anytime as needed; private codes are secret, and for one
> person only.
I think removing the buzzer breaks Noisebridge. Making it harder to get
in wwould keep out more awesome newbies than people we don't want there.
We definitely need to get better at asking people to leave (and I think
we are doing that) but this is a separate issue from letting people in
in the first place.
Making it more difficult to get in would be killing the goose that lays
I've heard lots of ideas recently for features to add to the keycode
system, like codes that automatically expire or only work at certain
times. I just enabled the github issue tracker on the noisebridge-baron
project (thats the code behind the keypad) and I suggest perhaps people
should use that to coordinate work they're planning to do on this:
ps: last night I regretfully ran out of patience and (for the first
time, I'm pretty sure) yelled at someone at the Noisebridge meeting.
I am sorry for yelling. I stand by what I said, though, which was
"belle starr, get the fuck out". I'll endeavor to do a better job
keeping my calm in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss