[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Tue Oct 1 22:45:56 UTC 2013

How would the proposed membership/guest infrastructure effect events,
especially events that are organized by people that are not members? I
don't think I saw anything addressing event logistics.

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Dan Cote <terminationshok at gmail.com> wrote:

> Seconded. ~3-6 months?
> I actually just proposed this in a direct message. I felt I should send
> something quick and actionable after I sent that wall of text.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Praveen Sinha <dmhomee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can't make it to consensus tomorrow night due to a meeting... BUT I think
>> this a very very fine line, and I think it may be good to experiment with
>> it first.
>>
>> First, having to have sponsors to come into the space can for sure
>> adversely affect our openness to new and totally legit people.  I recently
>> had an experience in Berlin where I wasn't allowed into C-Base because the
>> only 2 people at the space did not feel like hosting any outsiders at the
>> time.
>>
>> I personally think our commitment to openness is what makes Noisebridge
>> truly unique and special and valuable -- frankly on the whole damn planet
>> as far as hackerspaces go, and I'm willing to go through a lot of pain to
>> keep it that way.
>>
>> That said, I do see your pain points with shit walking out the door Jake,
>> so I wouldn't neccesarily block... But is there some way that we can have
>> an experimental period?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Last week it was proposed that Noisebridge make changes to our access
>>> policy.  The basic idea is that if someone is a Member or Associate Member
>>> of Noisebridge, they are allowed to be in the space at any time (with the
>>> usual exception of leaving when asked for conflict resolution purposes)
>>>
>>> Further it should be that if someone who is not a Member or Associate
>>> Member of the space, they can be in the space if they are the guest of a
>>> Member or Associate Member who is present.
>>>
>>> In most ways this will cause only a subtle ripple in the way Noisebridge
>>> has been working until now.  If a person is in the space and the person who
>>> let them in has left, if they are not doing anything objectionable it is
>>> unlikely that anyone will even ask them if they have a sponsor.
>>> However, if someone is being unexcellent and there is no one present who
>>> is their sponsor, it is now possible to ask the person to leave due to no
>>> fault of their own.
>>>
>>> This is very valuable, because up until now it has been necessary to
>>> wait until someone does something fucked up, and then try to use that as a
>>> lever to get them to leave.  This generally leads to unpleasantness,
>>> especially since you are inherently asking someone to admit to wrongdoing
>>> by the act of leaving voluntarily.  This has been nothing but trouble the
>>> whole time, and 90% of the time when someone is being shitty, our response
>>> is to let it continue because the alternative is getting in an argument
>>> with an asshole.
>>>
>>> From now on, with this new arrangement, Noisebridge is by default open
>>> only to Member and Associate Members and their guests.  Of course anyone
>>> who rings the doorbell is very likely to be let in by a Member or Associate
>>> Member, and is sponsored by the person who lets them in until that person
>>> leaves or ends the sponsorship (in case of a bad fit for that person at
>>> noisebridge).  If a person without a sponsor is present and a problem comes
>>> up, any Member or Associate Member can volunteer to be their sponsor if one
>>> thinks they should stay and continue hacking (after solving the problem
>>> with their new sponsor's help).
>>>
>>> I see this as a win for all visions of Noisebridge access policy, since
>>> it takes away nothing from what we can choose to do, and it gives us so
>>> much more freedom to do what we need to do without insulting people who
>>> need to leave.
>>>
>>> I think the most important aspect of this arrangement is the concept of
>>> Accountability.  If a Member or Associate Member does something
>>> questionable at noisebridge, there is definitely a way to contact that
>>> person to discuss the situation, and almost certainly a friend of theirs
>>> who is also a Member or Associate Member who can help facilitate problem
>>> solving.  This is how we maintain the excellence of our community and
>>> environment, by Accountability.
>>>
>>> With Guests, there is no inherent accountability.  When someone walks in
>>> the door and is greeted by no one, and answers to no one, they have been
>>> told no rules and there is not even a person who they can ask questions
>>> about what is appropriate for our space.
>>>
>>> With this new system, every person who is let in the door is likely to
>>> be introduced to a specific person who will explain, "You are my guest
>>> here, and if there are any issues such as with another person, you can come
>>> to me or use my name as your sponsor, as long as I am here." This means
>>> that every new person is immediately granted accountability to our network
>>> through a Member or Associate Member as their proxy server.
>>>
>>> Any guest who, for example is told that they should not be sleeping on
>>> the couch in the library, will either answer by correcting their behavior
>>> (hopefully), or they will involve their sponsor somehow (perhaps by
>>> invoking their name as a defense of their activity).  At that point their
>>> sponsor, who as a Member or Associate Member has accountability to the
>>> community, can be asked to solve that problem in a productive way.  When
>>> they come to their Guest and affirm that their invitation did not extend to
>>> permission to sleep in the library, the guest sees it coming from the same
>>> person who originally let them in and thus has the right to make them leave
>>> if they don't stop fucking up.
>>>
>>> If the person sleeping in the library isn't able to produce a Member or
>>> Associate Member who is present at the time, and none who are present want
>>> to sponsor them at that time, they can be asked to leave due to no fault of
>>> their own, but simply because it is noisebridge policy.
>>>
>>> One justification for this policy is that Noisebridge Members and
>>> Associate Members look out for one another by protecting the space and the
>>> people in it from those who are not excellent enough to attract a sponsor.
>>> We do that for each other so that we can benefit from the improved culture
>>> and environment, as well as decreased entropy and theft, that resluts.
>>>
>>> I am out of town so i won't be able to participate in the meeting,
>>> but two things I wanted to emphasize are:
>>>
>>> 1:  I don't think we should do it this way part of the time, i think we
>>> shoud be this way 24/7 all the fucking time.  anyone who comes in the door
>>> gets introduced to a person who will sponsor them at that time, or
>>> alternately give them a quick tour and then an invitation to come back
>>> another time, or perhaps there are no members in the space who want to
>>> sponsor a guest at that time and the person doesn't get to come in.  I
>>> think this last option will happen very infrequently but if it does, I
>>> don't think we're losing anything.  If a person was going to come to
>>> noisebridge but there was nobody there who wanted to give them a
>>> tour/introduction, they are better off coming back another time.
>>>
>>> 2:  Remember that this is a subtle change.  The biggest practical effect
>>> is that it makes it possible to tell someone (who has NO sponsor) that they
>>> have to leave due to no fault of their own, but simply because of policy.
>>>  This is a problem-solving feature and a de-escalation strategy of which we
>>> should recognize the value.
>>>
>>> So, come tuesday, pass the fucking thing and don't limit it to certain
>>> hours.
>>>
>>> -jake
>>>
>>> P.S. the typo was on purpose to see if you were paying attention.
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.**noisebridge.net<Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss<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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131001/0c93b39f/attachment-0003.html>