[Noisebridge-discuss] amendments to membership proposal - associate members and 24/7 hours
dharlette at gmail.com
Wed Oct 23 00:07:07 UTC 2013
Personally, I think the new rule is great (and this is someone who is not a
member). I'm also just fine with there being a sort of "junior member"
state that is enough to be allowed in after hours, which should be easier
to achieve and does NOT have the right to block. The ability to block is
an incredibly powerful one, and it only takes two jerkoffs with Membership
to cause havoc and defend each other from attempts to remove them. We need
to be careful about handing that out; we've had issues with people who
don't really understand consensus blocking things in a way that is highly
detrimental to the community. I like there being three levels: visitors,
who need someone to accompany them, members, who can visit without a
chaperone, and Members, who can block and who pay (because paying gives us
a way of getting rid of them if they're ever late on their dues).
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Alan Rockefeller <alanrockefeller at gmail.com
> I suggest we keep the policy and perhaps expand it to all hours, but add
> “unless they are hacking something“.
> Or add the language “consider not enforcing this on people who are clearly
> being productive.“
> I love the idea of kicking out the bums and have kicked a more than a few
> out myself, I just hate to see a rigid one size fits all policy applied to
> people who are using the space for its intended purpose.
> I worry that people who are asked to leave while being excellent might not
> return. That is not the intent of this policy at all, but it is bound to
> happen given the current language.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss