[Noisebridge-discuss] The legalities.

Sun Apr 6 01:31:34 UTC 2014

I don't go to a lot of meetings, but I definitely recall Kevin taking a
discussion of banning a regular sleeper or two off the table with the
implication that he would block, saying he would talk to them instead.
 Your draft 1 removed the rules against sleeping at noisebridge.  I don't
understand the beating around the bush.   Under what kind of circumstances
do you think people should be allowed to sleep at noisebridge?

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Kevin, I made the assumption because the Current Consensus Page had
> linked to it and your github account had posted that particular diff.
>
> Maybe some questions would clear things up: Why did your version of the
> community guidelines specifically strip out the part about sleeping at the
> space?
>
> Cause all it has in its place is vague wording and nothing that, to me at
> least, would spell out actual definitions of what it means to live at the
> space and what people can do to prevent people from living at the space.
>
> Here's an assumption on my part: You want it to be okay for people to
> sleep at Noisebridge way more frequently than most people would say is
> okay, but you know you can't get an official policy condoning that passed.
> So instead you water down any policy attempts to curb sleeping to be
> toothless.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> On April 5, 2014 7:41:09 AM PDT, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey, follow up question Kevin. You wanted to add, "Noisebridge
>> > supports
>> > fair usage. We agree as participants of Noisebridge to be excellent."
>> > to
>> > the house rules proposal.
>> > https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/27
>> >
>> > Would you consider sleeping in the space to be "fair usage"? And if
>> > so, why
>> > not just try to pass a consensus proposal with the more direct
>> > language of
>> > "sleeping is allowed in the space"?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I didn't say you did, Kevin. Heck, you've never had to. That's the
>> > great
>> > > thing about consensus and why you want to keep it: not only can you
>> > > unilaterally block something but everyone knows you can so they
>> > don't even
>> > > bother bringing it up. And if not you, then J.C. or someone else.
>> > >
>> > > Sleeping at the space has been a problem people have complained
>> > about *for
>> > > years*, but no one took the obvious step of proposing a consensus
>> > item
>> > > until Tom's recent "house rules" item which, surprise surprise, has
>> > been
>> > > delayed or had attempts to water it down with vague language. (And
>> > actually
>> > > banning people, even temporarily, for sleeping at the space has been
>> > > completely out of the picture.)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On April 4, 2014 9:33:16 PM PDT, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> > At which point the people who use Noisebridge as a part time
>> > residence
>> > >> > will
>> > >> > tell you they don't reside at Noisebridge, they just "sleep-hack"
>> > or
>> > >> > "rest
>> > >> > their eyes".
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Until you prevent people from sleeping at Noisebridge, they will
>> > >> > continue
>> > >> > to live at Noisebridge. Until you have some negative consequence
>> > like
>> > >> > temporary or permanent bans, people will still sleep at
>> > Noisebridge.
>> > >> > Until
>> > >> > you get rid of consensus, Kevin will prevent any negative
>> > consequences
>> > >> > for
>> > >> > sleeping at Noisebridge.
>> > >> > On Apr 4, 2014 11:22 AM, "B Perez" <knighty04 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Hear hear! +1
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > On Apr 3, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Norman Bradley
>> > <pryankster at gmail.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > It has been mentioned several times that people living at NB
>> > >> > violates
>> > >> > > our lease. It is actually a bit more complicated. After looking
>> > up
>> > >> > how 2169
>> > >> > > Mission is zoned. I found that it is not zoned for residential.
>> > A
>> > >> > place to
>> > >> > > start looking is at
>> > >> > > http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2771#findzoning .
>> > That is
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > San Francisco Planning Department and you can find a list of
>> > >> > changes,
>> > >> > > permits, and even how much things cost. Our place "Appears
>> > eligible
>> > >> > for
>> > >> > > listing in the California Register of Historical Resources."
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I am NOT a lawyer so this is just a guess after looking at
>> > the
>> > >> > online
>> > >> > > records. I think that what they say is that floor 1 is zoned
>> > for
>> > >> > food sales
>> > >> > > and floors 2 and 3 are light industrial. To allow sleeping /
>> > living
>> > >> > in the
>> > >> > > space will at least require new permits from the, Planning
>> > Dept.,
>> > >> > Fire
>> > >> > > Dept., and Health Dept. as well as convincing the landlord.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I'm not sure how long flogging this issue will continue, but,
>> > in
>> > >> > my
>> > >> > > opinion it is not up for debate. It is spelled out in both
>> > zoning
>> > >> > law and
>> > >> > > our lease. Our object should be how do we stop it not how much
>> > >> > should we
>> > >> > > allow.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > You are entitled to your own opinion.
>> > >> > > > You are NOT entitled to your own facts.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Norman
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > _______________________________________________
>> > >> > > 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
>> > >>
>> > >> ^^ lol Al. I have never blocked a single proposal to ban someone
>> > from
>> > >> Noisebridge. You're welcome to persist in this fantasy as long as
>> > you like.
>> > >> Let's move forward with honesty, openness and empathy.
>> > >>
>> > >> -Kevin
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> Al, please do not make assumptions , asking questions is a good place to
>> start. To learn more about  the various
>> houseRules/communityGuidelines/fairUse proposals, please see the current
>> consensus items page. Fair use is Gregg's language. To me, determining fair
>> use requires knowledge of individual circumstances. That said, I understand
>> that others want to write down general categories of interaction with the
>> space, that generally are abusive. For instance, use of space that brakes
>> agreements we have made with our landlord and neighbors.
>>
>> I have done my best, via having many conversations with many people at
>> Noisebridge, to put down draft 1 of community guidelines. Al, if you want
>> to sit down and talk, with that document as a starting point, then let's do
>> it and see where we can beef up the language.
>>
>> -Kevin
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140405/c3bd6e5b/attachment.html>