[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge as "facility"
pnaomi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 22:06:41 UTC 2014
> YES. And those "people" are all of us, not some paid staffr. Why can't we say "if you are going to use Noisebridge, then you are expected to share the responsibility for maintenance."
That is actually the OPPOSITE of the thing I have named as
Noisebridge-as-facility. That is the model of
Noisebridge-as-facility entails a model of assigning responsibilities
to a named few such that all resources can be guaranteed available,
even to people who have no intention of helping maintain the space.
The reason we need to make this distinction is that there are people
who use Noisebridge who have little to no intention of participating
in the model of Noisebridge-as-hackerspace.
If we agree that a functional Noisebridge is a hackerspace-Noisebridge
as you envision, where everyone MUST participate and maintain its
resources (nevermind how you'd enforce that), the logical consequence
is that we have make people who don't intend to participate feel
unwelcome so they will leave.
If, instead, we agree that a functional Noisebridge is a
facility-Noisebridge where a handful of named people are responsible
for maintaining the resources, then the conversation about who is "in"
the community becomes very different.
To participate in a discussion like this you have to accept some
arbitrary definitions and be willing to work with them. OR explicitly
say, "those definitions are bullshit" and explain why.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/2014 10:15:54 AM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm using the word "facility" in the same sense of a library, where people
>> can expect to read books and use computers, which are maintained by people
>> whose job it is to maintain the computers.
> Yes! But the "responsible people" are all the members and users of the
> space. The responsibility should shared by the community.
>> "Hackerspace", on the other hand, does not (to me) imply a guaranteed set
>> of services -- only a smattering of tools and a space to use them in.
> then you should add "a smattering of broken, dysfunctional tools and piles
> upon piles of disorganized junk."
>> As for your quote: it doesn't matter what's written down. It matters what
>> people do and believe.
> We should make what's written down matter, so that what people do and expect
> and believe are based on shared goals and values. Currently, NB suffers from
> CONFLICTING goals and values. If NB is going to be "only a smattering of
> tools and a space to use them in" then FINE-- but let's all get on the same
> page about that. Currently, we are NOT all on the same page about that.
>> If Noisebridge were to be accepted by all as being a "facility"... We
>> would start naming people as responsible for maintenance
> YES. And those "people" are all of us, not some paid staffr. Why can't we
> say "if you are going to use Noisebridge, then you are expected to share the
> responsibility for maintenance."
> Currently, we say "you can use Noisebridge, break tools, and leave a mess,
> and that's ok." This seems self-destructive to the space, and disrespectful
> to the few who willingly take responsibility and clean up after others.
>> and then we would probably pick schedules for those people to be on-hand
>> at certain times.
> YES. If you're a user of the space, you should be required to sign up for X
> volunteer hours per Y months.
>> I'm having the discussion because it needs to be had.
> Thank you, Naomi!
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss