[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge as "facility"

hep dis at gruntle.org
Tue Apr 29 22:33:00 UTC 2014

The thing is, the concept you are describing already applies to Noisebridge
as of the last entirety. Most people simply use and discard the resources
which are maintained by a select few who then become burned out and usually
move on to other non-dysfunctional spaces. So now we would have "assigned"
responsibilities for a "few" which sounds a lot more oppressive than
voluntarily taken on responsibilities by those who self-selected for it.
How would this new concept work out? What happens when someone gets tired
of maintaining a system that is constantly disrupted by users who have no
vested responsibility in making sure the resources are available to others?
Will this give more fake authority over the various parts of NB?  Who is
going to track whether those assigned to responsibilities are upkeeping
them? What motivation will people have to do these assigned
responsibilities, ie will there be some sort of benefit towards taking on
responsibilities that isn't given to those who do not have any?

This entire discussion feels like either a waste of time or yet another
touchy feely attempt to unfairly maintain noisebridge without either 1.
making it truly fair and balanced (ie everyone needs to sign up for a full
4hr volunteer session per month in the area of their choice) or 2. spending
real monetary resources on maintaining nb infrastructure (whatever happened
to the idea of a weekly cleaning service?). And that isn't a huge problem,
except it just ends up being another version of the on-going time wasting
and changing nothing discussion that has plagued NB since the beginning.

We ALREADY have an atmosphere where people don't feel welcome and leave.
This is because of how things are currently run, where if you want access
to resources you have to clean and maintain them yourself, and often your
work is disrupted by others in the community who take advantage of the care
you put into resources. So I guess my question is, what is the point of
this discussion, and how does it differ from every other similar discussion
around this issue. How exactly do you intend to make a decision regarding
this discussion, what is the bar for either way that decision goes (ie
number of posts on the mailing list supporting one vision or another? vote
at a meeting? how exactly will this question be answered?), and what are
the actual tangible benefits of the visions discussed, in detail. ie if we
do make "noisebridge as a facility", and we do have "people assigned to
duties", what duties will be assigned, how will they be assigned, how will
they be enforced, what benefits will people gain from getting duties, etc.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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-hackerspace.
> 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.
> --Naomi
> 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
> +1-415-728-7490
> skype: nthmost
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

hepic photography || www.hepic.net
    dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140429/692b8ae4/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list