[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

[Jake]

that is what i'm expecting will happen.  people will take the privelege 
and responsibility of letting people in more seriously, and do a better 
job of it.

and answer to your question, i think the answer is that the person will 
introduce themselves to the members who are there, and instantly and 
easily have several sponsors, and the hacking will continue uninterrupted.

If a person comes to noisebridge and cant get a single person there to 
welcome them in, it may be because they have a really bad reputation.

We have always been very good about welcoming new people to the space 24/7 
and i don't expect that to change at all.

-jake

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Praveen Sinha wrote:

> It could actually force noisebridge to sort of be a welcoming environment, by getting people who are answering
> doors to intro people and welcome them to the community....
> 
> But there are open questions I would have like what happens when a person may not have a door code but knows
> someone at the space who isn't at the space that the door answerer doesn't know :)
> 
> It could work, but like I said I think the implementation and reality will take some iteration...
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Leif Ryge <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
>       On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:10:29AM -0700, Jake 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.
> 
> My impression is that most people who have become involved with Noisebridge
> over the years would have been prevented from doing so by this policy. People
> arrive, they don't know anybody, and the fact that they're welcome is usually a
> critical part of what causes them to do awesome stuff at Noisebridge. If they
> are instead told that they're only welcome when or if someone is being
> responsible for them, well, that would be a very different experience and I
> think it would lead to significantly less awesome happening.
> 
> This is literally[1] a proposal to kill the golden-egg-laying goose.
> 
> ~leif
> 
> 1: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally
> 
> ps: the wording on the Current_Consensus_Items wiki page is nothing like the
> proposal above; it says "modify open hours so that nights are open-access to
> Members and to guests of any sponsoring Member also present in the space"
> 
> pps: the misspelled word is in the first sentence of the 3d-to-last paragraph
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 
> 
> 
>