[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal to increase membership at noisebridge by changing the rules

Nicholas LoCicero nick.locicero at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 05:56:33 UTC 2013

I was in a coop sailing club in Berkeley that cost $20/month and 2 hours of
work every month, but you could get free memberships by just teaching
classes. Everything was free. Classes, borrowing sailboats, etc etc. I
think that system would work very well at Noisbridge. Everyone at
noisebridge should have to be a junior member to get wifi, etc. To be a
junior member, all a person has to do is volunteer, teach, and pay a little
dues. Simple. What noisebridge has npw is a invitation fpr disrespect,
theft, and abuse by allowing anyone in and setting zero standard for them.
On Oct 13, 2013 10:03 PM, "Jake" <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> Really, at this point I am trying to debug your proposal, not throw it
>> out. I know we have gone over this disconnect-of-tone between us
>> several times, but given I'm just giving some mild thoughts here (and
>> was the person who steered your last proposal to consensus when you
>> didn't even turn up to discuss it), you should probably say thank you
>> and rub my back and tell me how awesome I am for participating rather
>> than just opting out. I'm not even the people who are going to block!
> you are awesome and you know that i know that, and backrubs are not
> allowed at noisebridge so you'll just have to take my word that i
> appreciate you just as you are.  I already see that you are merely playing
> the devils advocate (which you do so well) just to draw me out and explain
> the benefits of this proposal, which I am too lazy to do without prodding.
>  As it is now, I will adopt the standard mode of unemotional nitpickery
>> for which geeks are famous.
> yes totally objective, of course.  You can interpret my previous message
> as being harsh and accusatory toward the concept of stagnation and entropy,
> and certainly not directed toward you or your ideas.
>  on a lighter note, i expect that if we do accept the proposal i've made,
>>> it
>>> will be a fountain of cooperation and increased valuation of noisebridge,
>>> which will increase the population of people we can count on to fund the
>>> place, and increase the participation in the operation of the space.  I
>>> don't think we should be worried about overparticipation.
>> Can you give me some reasons why you think this? Just stating it as an
>> expectation does not make it so.
> When people feel no membership with a community, they hold no loyalty to
> it.  All the best people who come through noisebridge and are never invited
> to become a member because there's no need, they hang out at noisebridge
> for months or years and never take ownership.  Most of them never get to
> the point where they feel that it is their place to say soemthing or do
> something on behalf of the greater good of noisebridge, because they say to
> themselves and to me, "But i'm not a member!"
> If we accepted this proposal, all those excellent people coming to
> noisebridge would be regularly invited to become a member: "Hey, good to
> see you again!  I'm buzzing you in.  Let's get you signed up to apply for
> membership so you can have your own door code when you get up here!"
> And all those excellent people would shake hands and meet people by name,
> and sign up and become members.  They would have their own code, and they
> would feel comfortable coming to NB any time, day or night, and they would.
>  And when they saw asshattery or harassment, or excess entropy, or misuse
> of the space, they would feel empowered to say something, as a Member of
> noisebridge.
> And if the situation called for more than just their voice, they could
> turn left and right to the other Members of the space, whose names they
> knew, and ask them for help in solving whatever problem came up.
> And those Members would team up, solve the problem, three-way high-five,
> and then get back to awesome hacking!
>  Well, note that if you have a lot of members, getting consensus is
>> harder because any one of them can block. I believe that's one of the
>> reasons why being a member is so hard to get. Given that's the *only*
>> value to being a member at Noisebridge, why would enlarging the
>> membership help other problems? (These are genuine questions -- I'm
>> trying to understand why you think this would help)
> I think you're missing the point.  If we are literally believing that the
> ability to "block" is the only benefit of Membership of noisebridge, then
> we're throwing away all the potential of consensus decisionmaking, and
> keeping only the very worst part.
> Blocking is a very serious act, made only after exhaustive discussion and
> attempts at amendment fail.  Blocking as a means to defeat or silence a
> fellow member's concerns or aspirations is a move made in bad faith. The
> purpose of the right to block is like the purpose of nuclear weapons, which
> is to <S>create boondoggles and waste money</S> encourage good-faith
> negotiations toward a mutually workable solution.
> You knew this, but you're just making me spell it out.  Very clever.
> The real value of membershit is far greater than having a safe shelf in
> the locked member-shelf area, or having your own door-code with which you
> can grant access to yourself or someone you love or have never met.
> The real value of Membership at noisebridge is being a PART OF A COMMUNITY
> that works together to make amazing things and an amazing place.  To do
> what no one has done before!  And to do it with other people.
>  I have assumed that ending someones' membership can be achieved by
>>> consensus
>>> minus one.  is that not the case?
>> No -- I believe the rules(!) are that we have consensus, and that
>> members can block. So a member could block his/her own ejection from
>> the space. We could fix that too. But you would need to add it.
>> You might want to read the policy at https://noisebridge.net/wiki/**
>> Membership <https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership>
> very well then.  For those who are reading this far, I hereby add to my
> proposal that henceforth any member can be removed from the membership
> rolls by a consensus action, from which they are blocked from blocking.
> or would you word it differently?
>  even if it weren't, i think that waiting for someone to stop giving
>>> noisebridge money is a really sad way to trim the membership rolls.
>> I am sorry it makes you sad. It is the traditional way membership
>> rolls are trimmed, in that when people do not like something any more,
>> they stop giving it money.
> that's pathetic.  We can do better than that, and if we can't then i give
> up.  Noisebridge should definitely be above and beyond such a primitive and
> capitalistic tradition.
>  I suspect you are going to get much more pushback than me from people
>> who are used to the idea that membership is usually governed by paying
>> money. You will I think get people saying this is another one of those
>> crazy Noisebridge ideas, rather than taking your idea seriously. In
>> particular, you will -- mistakenly -- be tarred by the brush that this
>> is a "plot by the oogles to take over Noisebridge", because it removes
>> the one filter that someone who is assiduously using Noisebridge as
>> somewhere to stay rather than somewhere to hack on might have against
>> staging a takeover. I might be wrong though!
> I hope you are wrong, as you always are when you oppose me.
> also, noisebridge has often embraced "crazy" ideas in the past.
>  If it makes you happier, we have a few members who are on hiatus for a
>> very long time, who are waiting to come back.
> I have almost no connection to the current concept of membership at
> noisebridge, and it does nothing for me or for the space, or even for
> itself.  What would make me happy would be to see the positive changes that
> I think will result from my proposal.
> -jake
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131014/ae58483e/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list