[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Wed Oct 2 16:26:28 UTC 2013


     Pluses and minuses. I like the tone and 
some of the people who've been attracted. I 
hate that my stuff has been stolen. I also 
hate drunks and sloppy dopers. 


On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 23:56 -0700, Jake wrote:
> and how has that strategy been working for you?
> 
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, jim wrote:
> 
> >
> >    Your intention may not be the reality, as
> > in unintended consequences. I believe Leif's
> > description is credible and likely.
> >    We cannot legislate problems away; we
> > have to deal with them. Yes, it's frustrating.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 18:59 -0700, Jake wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Leif Ryge 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"
> >>
> >> The intention behind my proposal AND my full expectation of its outcome is
> >> a 0% reduction in admittance of guests and a 100% ijncrease in the proper
> >> introduction and induction of those guests, resluting in a 1000% increase
> >> in respect for and understanding of noisebridge's culture of excellence.
> >>
> >> -jake
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >