[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Darius Garza 313kid at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 19:40:06 UTC 2013

Not being social does not equate to loitering. That's not an excellent
assumption. Nor is there a policy...yet..that requires people to socialize
or share their projects with anyone. It's rather obvious when people are
abusing the space vs working in it without having to know exactly what they
are doing, or insisting they be watched by someone.

Like I said before, the people asking the questions aren't always nice
about it either and that can be rather off-putting. All i'm saying is that
yes, this will definitely limit the people who come to the place, however
 this might be a less excellent barrier to entry then  one may expect.


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden
<jeffreyatw at gmail.com>wrote:

> I seriously don't understand why people can't just not get offended by
> being asked such a simple question. I don't think you understand the
> concept of "privacy." If you can't actually explain what sort of thing
> you're doing in the space, I don't see why you should be there.
> It's unexcellent to loiter.
> Jeffrey
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Darius Garza <313kid at gmail.com> wrote:
> Noisebridge is already cliquey and intimidating for new guests as it is
> without bombarding them with questions like "who do you know here" and
> "what are you doing". I feel like such a policy threatens the openness of
> this space and makes it more difficult for people to cross that social
> hurdle into our community.
> Over the past months, people have been discussing situations like this
> one, and enforcing them to a certain extent. Unfortunately the interactions
> that I have witnessed, or been subjected to myself have not always been
> positive. I don't always want to justify my presence in the space,
> especially when the person asking me is obviously busy, impatient and has a
> chip on their shoulder because they think they are the gatekeepers of the
> hacker space.
> We can't compromise people's privacy in hopes of creating a more secure
> space.
> Some of NB's most valuable contributors aren't members at all. That's what
> I love so much about this place. To force those people to be babysat by
> actual "members" seems ridiculous. And if we are to put more emphasis on
> members as sponsors and docents, I think we need to reevaluate the
> membership criteria. I've sat through a few membership proposals and it
> seems really damn tough to become a member. The process seems more like a
> court case than a hacker space membership consideration. It's definitely
> dissuaded me from ever considering membership, although I do frequent the
> space and donate periodically.
> I normally keep quiet about the social infrastructure at NB, but all this
> talk about policy and rules lately has been rather disappointing,
> especially when we have already have an excellence policy that just needs
> to be enforced rather than added to.
> d.
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Chris Murphy <chrisnoisebridge at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> This proposal sounds like a big step in the right direction to me.
>> However, I'm interested to hear any other opinions.
>> I agree that entry policy should apply 24/7 to be simple, effective, and
>> unambiguous.
>> Chris
>> PS. One word wasn't capitalized but I didn't see any typos.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 2:10, 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
>> > 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130930/4568c387/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list