[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge is now Members and their Guests only, 24/7 please read and learn about it

Kevin Schiesser bfb at riseup.net
Thu Oct 31 06:00:25 UTC 2013

On 10/30/2013 10:32 PM, Jake wrote:
> To be clear, I never proposed a policy with limited hours.  That
> aspect was introduced and passed without me and I watched as it failed
> to do what I had hoped to achieve.  So I proposed removing that aspect
> of it and putting it the way I had originally intended it.
> I felt that the 11PM "closing time" concept was really bad, even
> though people liked some aspects of it, it had too much negative
> results and it had to go.
> i'm actually shooting for a shift in the way people access the space,
> to encourage more connection between people who choose to become
> Members or Associate Members, and those who want to use the space
> without joining anything.  The latter (and new people in off the
> street) will hopefully have a better connection to the community so
> they can participate better, as opposed to the total atomization that
> was happening up until now.
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
>> In fairness about criticizing this new policy... another policy was
>> in play
>> for only a few weeks and it was already overruled without giving it
>> the three
>> months allotted to see if it improved the space.
>> Yes, people were complaining about it, but people are also
>> complaining about
>> this, aren't they?
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>       The front page of the website is a wiki.  You can edit it if you
>>       think it needs to change.  When did you stop being a hacker?
>>       This policy hasn't been in effect a full day yet, and yet you're
>>       full of criticism for it with ZERO constructive suggestions.
>>        [insert joke about constructing bunk beds here]
>>       as for killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, apparently
>>       more people believe that to be true about people who refused for
>>       so long to do anything about the downhill slide that noisebridge
>>       has been in for a long time.  Geese can die from lack of care you
>>       know.
>>       As for being surprised that members passed this, another way to
>>       word it is that after weeks of discussion about this issue, all of
>>       the members who decided to show up agreed that it needed to be
>>       done.
>>       problems are not solved by blocking or criticising efforts.
>>        Problems are solved by making changes until things work better.
>>       As for noisebridge's public image, I empower you to publicize the
>>       subtle concept that the general public is welcome to stop by and
>>       that they will almost certainly be invited in and given a proper
>>       introduction and tour, and that we are eager to see them.
>>       While you're at it please tell them that we are working hard to
>>       replace our current perception by the public as a place you would
>>       never WANT to go with one where you WILL want to go and hack.  And
>>       if you refuse to recognize the reality that the golden eggs don't
>>       WANT to go to noisebridge because of its radical inclusivity,
>>       you're ignoring a lot of people's opinions.
>>       -jake
>>       On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Leif Ryge wrote:
>>             On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Jake wrote:
>>                   in every practical way nothing has changed
>>                   at all.
>>                   [...]
>>                   Noisebridge continues to be open to the
>>                   public 24/7 just as it always was.
>>             Do you actually believe those two statements? I almost
>>             expect you to say "not
>>             wittingly" next!
>>             The front page of the website now says "Noisebridge is
>>             open 24/7 to Members,
>>             Associate Members and guests thereof".
>>             It seems pretty obvious that people who don't know
>>             anyone there would, upon
>>             reading that, get the impression that they can't just
>>             drop in. I think most
>>             people (by a large margin) who have done awesome stuff
>>             at Noisebridge didn't
>>             know anyone physically present the first times they
>>             visited the space. So, I
>>             think this policy will have a significant negative
>>             impact.
>>             As I've said before, I think you're killing the goose
>>             that lays golden eggs.
>>             I am especially disappointed that this extremely
>>             drastic change was adopted at a meeting with only four
>>             members present. I hope the membership of Noisebridge
>>             will reconsider this.
>>             ~leif
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
As one of the few people at the meeting with opposition to both limiting
access to Noisebridge and creating an Associate Member role...

Many concerns were raised at the meeting, and I have listed some on the
notes page.


In addition to substantive concerns, process was also discussed. The
response I heard was that only ~4 members have been able to attend
Noisebridge meetings for the last couple months and this proposal has
been discussed for several weeks already.

I have been urging patience and questioning the urgency of many
consensus decisions at Noisebridge. Recalling proposals to amend
consensus for de-membership to mean consensus minus two, to ban Pigon,
and to limit access.

As Tom pointed out, we spent two hours in discussion. Even after, I
suggested that we bring the amended text back next week. I was the only
person at the meeting with this position. We agreed, as Rachel wrote,
that "Noisebridge is hacking itself".

At the meeting.. concerns were heard, responded to, and amendments were

Conservative consensus moved very quickly on a decision that radically
changes the way humans will interact with Noisebridge. (Note that there
must be a better way to create opportunity for greater feedback and
participation than what went down over that last month or so on the
mailing list and at the Tuesday meeting. Link's proposal to set a quorum
is preventative.)

I remain concerned that limiting access will not benefit Noisebridge,
but am optimistic that if this becomes clear we will act quickly.

Emphasis be made that if one person is asked to leave as not-a-member,
associate member or guest there off, all should be asked to leave. Truth
be told, I have never seen the Noisebridge roster of members in good
standing and could not refute anyone's claim that they are a member.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131030/ba848492/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list