[Noisebridge-discuss] NB Reset

[Andrew Byrne]

Johnny,

    -Hacker Hosts at the entrance √
    -Orientation process √
    -A Mission statement --It's usually in the bylaws; good luck if there
isn't one already.

Wrt the full throttle tilt into Godwin's law, I think you are arguing a
dialectic. Indeed, the cells are based on stochastic processes, yet have
order within them, die from the lightest whims of fate, but combine to make
organisms capable of navel gazing. Sorry to get Hellenic and Hegelic on
your ass, but I think the problem is not with order, but with the Cheif.

-dru
On May 31, 2013 7:25 AM, "Johny Radio" <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Dan
>
> Firstly, I did not mean to sound confrontational either. Sorry if it came
> across that way.
>
> I'd like to 'reset' my tone here, to something more gentle, and assume
> good intentions. I appreciate the dialog, Dan, and i'd like to move toward
> a mutually-respectful, drama-free dialog.
>
> On 5/31/2013 5:00 AM, Dan Cote wrote:
>
>> Why is it that the people who most want more rules and structure at
>> Noisebridge have so much disdain for the one piece of structure we do have?
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**wiki/Consensus<https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus>
>>
>
> Johny Radio: I don't. If you mean any procedural add-ons should go through
> consensus, well that's NB's process, so i have to respect that. I'm not
> suggesting any rules at all, nor changes to consensus.
>
> I'm suggesting:
>
>     -Hacker Hosts at the entrance
>     -Orientation process
>     -A Mission statement
>
>
>  DC: It's not that I want Noisebridge to decline into a state of unusable
>> oogleness, ...it's that Noisebridge is one of very few places where a
>> person has some degree of autonomy, while still being supported by a
>> community.
>>
>
> JR: Can you give an example of Noisebridge autonomy that's missing from
> TechShop and Ace Monster Toys and Hacker Dojo?
>
> I enjoy that NB snubs it's nosebridge at corporatization. I enjoy the many
> amazing people I meet at NB. I enjoy that NB is free for those who cannot
> afford membership. I enjoy the stacks of free electronic components and the
> incredible library.
>
> I do not enjoy how certain prominent members (not you) are domineering,
> disrespectful, and abusive toward anyone who dares suggest that NB is
> anything but perfect. This seems directly contrary to the ideals of
> anarchism, liberty, autonomy, community, and consensus.
>
> Please believe that any suggestions for tweaking NB should not be taken as
> an attack or denunciation of NB. If NB was not valuable for me, i would not
> come here as often as i do.
>
>
>  DC: People who want to share a workshop protected by rules and structure
>> can go to techshop.
>>
>
> JR: I wonder if the "If you don't like it the way it is, then go someplace
> else" posture is a slap in the face to the many good people who have made
> personal contributions of creativity, effort, and money to NB over the
> years, who now have concerns about its recurring problems.
>
>
>  DC: I advocate for "fixing noisebridge" by doing exactly that. Imagine
>> the noisebridge you want to have and just fucking make it happen.
>>
>
> JR: I feel that does not work for everything, Dan. Do-ocracy is great for
> individual autonomy. But some things cannot happen without community-wide
> support and participation. Resolving chronic problems involves agreed-on
> planning and intent. It's not something one person can just "make happen";
> it's something we have to do together.
>
>
>  DC: If we don't stick together, no amount of rules or structure are going
>> to make this community worthwhile.
>>
>
> JR: Not sure what you mean by "stick together".
>
> i'm NOT promoting "rules" or structural changes at all. I'm promoting
> procedure, which is not rules. I'd be happy if we stop using the word
> "rules".
>
> To have hacker hosts welcoming everyone who enters the space is not a
> "rule". Orientation for new participants is not a "rule". Explaining to
> people that if they put food trash in the sinks which do not have a
> disposal, then the sink will clog and someone (usually someone else) will
> have to stick their arms into the filth and scrape out the food, is not a
> "rule".
>
> Consider this: structure is the basis of biological life. Organic material
> is a natural, organized system. At every level, molecular, a single
> organism, a herd, a forest, a planet-- there is deep structure and
> organization in all of life. Without structure, plants and animals would
> not exist. Unless we're going to call nature a fascist, i think this
> demonstrates that organization is not necessarily evil.
>
>
>  /DC: every person at noisebridge is already empowered to decide what
>> behavior is acceptable or not acceptable/, and to bring that action to a
>> discussion with the community.
>>
>
> JR: What seems to happen, in my 3 years coming to NB, is that people bring
> issues to meetings, but nothing much really comes of it, because, in a
> sense, nothing is allowed to come of it. Except to kick people out. Which
> seems a rather blunt instrument. Soon after, some new people engage in the
> identical unacceptable behavior. And the cycle repeats. And eventually, the
> people who got kicked out slip back in. And the cycle repeats. For me, this
> creates a feeling of powerlessness and frustration, not empowerment.
>
>
>  DC: Imposing rules on a community that was built with very few of them
>> seems almost cruel at this point.
>>
>
> JR: "Imposing" implies some kind of hierarchical power base, forcing rules
> on the rest of us from on-high. I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
>
> There are so many wonderful things about the NB community. I think we can
> have the courage to say, "NB is awesome and fantastic, and we're grateful
> it exists, but it's not perfect, and we're clever enough to make a few
> tweaks without ruining what makes it awesome."
>
>
>  DC: Many noisebridgers have concerns with any new rules or structure.
>> This necessitates addressing those concerns before the plan can proceed.
>>
>
> JR: I think it might be revealing to do a poll.
>
>
>  DC: This latest push for rules and structure seems to be disregarding
>> those very concerns and blaming those with concerns for the problems
>> created by other people.
>>
>
> JR: "Latest", meaning it keeps coming up? So, maybe there's something to
> it.
>
> I certainly would not want to disregard anyone's concerns-- that's why
> we're having a discourse. I feel the discussion list enables discussion
> that can go deeper, and involve the wider community, than meetings alone.
>
> I think many noisebridgers have concerns with the state of things at NB.
> To say "if you don't like it, go someplace else" disregards their concerns.
>
>
>  DC: I apologize for the earlier post, I had a moment where I was filled
>> with rage at the idea of cleaning the elevator by myself. The post was
>> unnecessarily obnoxious.
>>
>
> JR. No worries.
>
>
> Best wishes, Dan.
>
>
> Johny Radio
> Stick It In Your Ear!
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.**noisebridge.net<Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss<https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130531/9aa32a4c/attachment-0003.html>