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

Liz Henry lizhenry at gmail.com
Tue Oct 22 20:29:20 UTC 2013

I am a member, and will always block your membership.  It is not just
capital that's blocking you. It is also bullshit detection.


- Liz

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>wrote:

> I was literally just about to re-unsubscribe to this list, and then...
> "way for starving hackers to contribute to Noisebridge - some of our
> first members were full Members even though a number of them could not
> afford any money for Membership. I remember a certain hacker who was..."
> Is begging for expansion; my membership has been twice blocked by capital:
> once by Tom identifying one of my sponsors as being late on dues, and then
> later when my membership came up for consensus and I hadn't picked up my
> first contract in the city. I've co-founded 3 successful, persistent
> radical leftist collectives, participated in another 3, and have--till
> Noisebridge--never seen sweat equity denied.
> That said, I like what Jake is circling around here; a recognized
> mechanism for frequent users of the space to ask the valid question "what
> are you using Noisebridge for?" and deal with answers that don't coincide
> with the culture of past and present hackers.
> I don't see how that necessitates manifesting a castrated membership
> class, though; couldn't we formalize the shelving permissions, or host a
> l337 noisebridge git repo or email service as a reward for those who would
> like something in return for their monetary contributions?
> Still tied by the heart
> -AnB
> On Oct 22, 2013 2:09 AM, "Jacob Appelbaum" <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
>> Jake:
>> > 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.
>> Indeed, why ask them to leave? As a matter of closing the space to
>> people in the out group? It seems bad to create an out group that could
>> ever include a productive, excellent hacker that isn't actively
>> misbehaving in a way that is negatively impacting the space...
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > So, I think we need to end the limited-hours policy and change it to
>> > a full-time policy, something that we can maintain at all hours.  If
>> > members of the space want to ask people to leave at 11PM (or 2PM or
>> > noon or anytime), they can still do so, if those non-members are
>> > without a live sponsor at that time.  Importantly, this means that
>> > Members and other people who understand the policy will explain it to
>> > people coming in the door, regardless of what time they came in.
>> > That way, if someone is working on stuff and it starts getting late,
>> > they will be able to ask someone to sponsor their continued hacking
>> > rather than just be carelessly booted out.
>> >
>> I'm confused by your statement.
>> Are you saying that the policy results in the suffering of folks who
>> shouldn't be suffering, so you'd like that policy to be an all-hours
>> policy? That seems less than ideal. If people are otherwise excellent
>> and then they're asked to leave, regardless of the time, it strikes me
>> as a bad policy.
>> > In order for us to move to full-time Members rule, there need to be
>> > more Members.  I have a solution for that which should be less
>> > objectionable than the proposal i've put out there for this week.
>> >
>> This is really depressing here Jake - full-time Members? Next up, we'll
>> have partial members?
>> > I propose that we add a tier of membership, called Associate Member,
>> > which is a person who has been consensed upon to be an Associate
>> > Member.  Their duty to noisebridge does not include a mandatory cash
>> > donation but a general "regular contributions to Noisebridge".
>> >
>> I can't tell if this is trolling. Is this serious? We've always had a
>> way for starving hackers to contribute to Noisebridge - some of our
>> first members were full Members even though a number of them could not
>> afford any money for Membership. I remember a certain hacker who was
>> sleeping in the space before we had an idea of proper security
>> considerations for the 83c space. His contributions were worth more than
>> money - his time was amazingly well invested and kept some important
>> equipment safe.
>> There were others who could not afford to contribute money to the space
>> and they were not marginalized as a matter of funds.
>> > Associate Members will not be able to block consensus items.  But
>> > they will be able to sponsor guests while they are present in the
>> > space, like full members can.
>> Membership is about participation in consensus and about having a
>> specific legal role. It is not about privileges generally. We rejected
>> the NGO style "membership" that isn't legally worth anything - this is
>> not the membership of joining say, the World Wild Life Fund - capital
>> 'M' Members are legally in control of the power structure. They can
>> legally throw the board out, they can legally do all kinds of things and
>> have actual power. This is by design.
>> >
>> > At the same time I propose that we remove the time restriction on
>> > the policy of Members and their Guests only.  This may sound like it
>> > will create a problem when there are not enough members around the
>> > space, but in practice it should encourage members and guests to get
>> > to know one another at all times, rather than only at 11PM when
>> > guests are being asked to leave (which is how it is now)
>> >
>> Yes, it sounds like a problem. It sounds like there is already a problem
>> and you're attempting to solve it by making the problem a permanent
>> state of problem. A New Noisebridge Normal.
>> > When it is normal for every guest to be introduced to a Member or
>> > Associate Member, when night falls and the membership wants to ask
>> > some people to leave who are without sponsors, there will be enough
>> > awareness of the guest sponsorship policy that guests who want to
>> > continue to stay will be aware that they can ask members to sponsor
>> > them so they can continue hacking.  This is the intended goal - to
>> > increase the connection between guests and members (not to just kick
>> > out non-members all the time)
>> >
>> > the amended proposal should be worded as follows:
>> >
>> > A new Tier of Membership to Noisebridge shall exist, called
>> > Associate Member.  People can become Associate Members through the
>> > normal membership process.  Associate Members are not required to
>> > contribute to Noisebridge financially, only to "contribute regularly"
>> > to Noisebridge.
>> >
>> Please don't do this - it is absolutely revolting.
>> > Associate Members, while present, can host non-members in the space
>> > just like Full Members.  But Associate Members cannot block consensus
>> > like Members.
>> >
>> They're not Members by law - they're literally a different legal group.
>> It is a meaningless class - there are two classes of power - inside
>> Noisebridge as capital 'M' Members and those who are merely visitors,
>> guests or people otherwise unaffiliated with the space. The board is
>> specifically designed to be a position of liability, not a position of
>> legal authority that is free to decide things without the general will
>> of the Membership. Changing this dynamic has legal consequences but it
>> also has a major social impact.
>> > Also the policy of Noisebridge as a space open only to Members and
>> > their guests shall be changed to 24 hours a day instead of 23:00 to
>> > 10:00. This means that at any time, a person who is without a live
>> > sponsor in the space can be told that if they cannot find a new live
>> > sponsor promptly they should pack up and come back another time,
>> > perhaps Tuesday night.
>> This policy nearly completes the full circle of turning Noisebridge into
>> Hacker Dojo. Without the good parts, I might add.
>> >
>> > The spirit of the last paragraph is not to exclude people but rather
>> > to encourage a connection between each guest of the space and at
>> > least one Member of the space at all times.
>> That is rather Orwellian. Though George would have said it more concisely:
>> "Consensus rations have been raised to zero for all lower tiered members."
>> All the best,
>> Jake
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Liz Henry
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...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131022/4c492a46/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list