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

Jake jake at spaz.org
Tue Oct 22 03:21:25 UTC 2013


My goal is to remove the event of 23:00 being "kick people out" time. 
Instead, my goal is to make every moment a time when people coming to 
noisebridge get a proper introduction, and a connection to a Member of 
noisebridge.  As long as that happens, people can be in the space any 
time.  They just need to have someone who is a Member in the space say 
that they're vouched for.

Having people fill out a form does nothing by itself.  As the proposal, 
which passed, is worded, the application needs signatures of at least two 
Members of noisebridge in order for the applicant to be entitled to the 
space in the "after hours" without a live sponsor.

If you are a member, you are welcome to personally vouch for anyone you 
see in the space.  When they are asked (for example by Monad) if they have 
a sponsor, they will mention you, and if you are present, Monad can talk 
to you if he has any concerns about them.  It is a simple solution.

If you are not a member, perhaps it is because of the financial 
requirements of being a Member, and this week's proposal will help by 
creating Associate Members who can host guests (and sign applications) 
while not being required to make financial contributions.  You should 
become an Associate Member so you can help people feel welcome at 

My hope is that by removing the special time period, we will embrace this 
new system of excellence at all times, so that the only time people will 
be asked to leave is if they are somehow detracting from the space and 
there is no Member present who wants to stick up for them.


Kevin wrote:

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 excellen

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list