[Noisebridge-discuss] amendments to membership proposal - associate members and 24/7 hours
bfb at riseup.net
Tue Oct 22 04:30:08 UTC 2013
Jake and Liz,
I am concerned the latest proposal will wrap the whole experience in
"kick people out" time, spiraling down a positive feedback loop until,
as Liz points out, the space is unoccupied for many hours at a time. I
have a similar goal of making every moment a time when people coming to
Noisebridge get a proper introduction, but a different way of going
about it. Along side general excellence and welcoming do-ocracy, I
support the proposal to eliminate money from membership.
Rather then create an air of power-over or grave responsibility, we
could offer full membership to people who want to commit time rather
than money. I really like the idea of de-coupling membership from dues,
while also requesting that some commitment be made upon becoming a
member (money or time). I can see members of the future sending a wiki
Users link to the treasurer every month with a sort-of public timesheet
or 'this is what my service to noisebridge has been' documentation.
A reasonable time commitment includes taking a weekly docent shift,
teaching a class, putting on events, etc... All of which attract more
excellent people to noisebridge.
On 10/21/2013 08:50 PM, Liz Henry wrote:
> Hmmm. What happens if all the members leave, for example in the
> evening? Does that ever happen?
> - Liz
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org
> <mailto:jake at spaz.org>> wrote:
> 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 Noisebridge.
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> at NB form 23:00-10:00. As regards the bug last night, that's my
> for not introducing myself and the membership binder to everyone that
> came in the door. I'm not convinced that extending the outage time
> 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 <mailto:jake> at spaz.org <http://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
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Liz Henry
> lizhenry at gmail.com <mailto:lizhenry at gmail.com>
> "Electric ladies will you sleep or will you preach?" -- Janelle Monae
> "Without models, it's hard to work; without a context, difficult to
> evaluate; without peers, nearly impossible to speak." -- Joanna Russ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss