[Noisebridge-discuss] amendments to membership proposal - associate members and 24/7 hours

Kevin Schiesser bfb at riseup.net
Tue Oct 22 01:48:12 UTC 2013

I was on docent shift last night. I asked one fella I found drinking 
beer in the stairway to leave. Two folks filed membership applications 
(under the "vouched for" section of the binder), and remained at 
Noisebridge after 23:00. I recognized both people as having been coming 
to NB for several months, and neither had heard of the new policy. All 
told, when I left there were three or four active hackers in the space.

On the way out, Monad commented that one day Noisebridge will be 
welcoming to activists again. Thinking of Cypherpunks, open-source 
hackers/contributers, freedom on the web, freedom of information, etc... 
This resonated with me, and I will consider further the impact of 
proposals such as this in these terms. Will limiting access to NB 
attract activists? Will the proposal reduce disruption, disturbance, 
theft to facilitate hacking? Are there better ways for NB to be more 

At the meeting where this proposal was consensed, John and I both 
strongly stood aside. As such, I have been steering many to file 
sponsorship paperwork to avoid being asked to leave. One person I've 
spoken with is adverse to filing any paperwork at all, and has not been 
at NB form 23:00-10:00. As regards the bug last night, that's my failure 
for not introducing myself and the membership binder to everyone that 
came in the door. I'm not convinced that extending the outage time will 
bring more excellent hackers to NB.


On 10/21/2013 05:26 PM, John Ellis wrote:
> HI Jake,
> I didn't think this original proposal was a good idea. Problems like 
> you mention below, with genuine hackers being asked to leave, are 
> bound to happen at various times.
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org 
> <mailto:jake at spaz.org>> wrote:
>     tl;dr at the end of this post is the amended consensus item for
>     this week
>     I just found out that an excellent hacker was working on stuff
>     late at noisebridge last night, and was asked to leave at 11:00PM.
>      This is terribly sad and should not have happened.  I consider it
>     to be a serious bug in the system.
>     I tracked down the cause of this crash to the horrible mutation of
>     my last proposal, specifically, making the members-and-guests
>     policy only take effect after 23:00 (11PM) until 10AM  (I had
>     wanted it to be 24/7)
>     With this current borked policy, people continue to come into
>     noisebridge without meeting anyone, without getting a sponsor, no
>     tour and no introduction.  And regardless of whether they're
>     hacking or abusing the space, they are asked to leave at 11PM by
>     the same anonymous unfriendly mystery that let them in.  This is
>     total shit.
> Just wondering, what defined this particular person as an "excellent 
> hacker"? Asking a excellent hacker to leave, is IMO unexcellent, even 
> if its just a miscommunications regarding the new policy.
> -John
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131021/812af91c/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list