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

maestro maestro415 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 31 07:58:19 UTC 2013

orwell turns in his grave with snagglepuss laugh.

message ends _____________

On 10/30/13, Kevin Schiesser <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> 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.
> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_10_29
> 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
> made.
> 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.
> -Kevin


*~the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear...*

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list