[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge as "facility"

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 23:59:09 UTC 2014


There must be a German word for the feeling you get when someone
writes, "this discussion is a waste of time" and then proceeds to
write an essay.

If we've had these discussions before, outline how they went or link
to relevant mailing list archives.  Don't just do a drive-by "we've
been through this."  If we'd been through it and it resulted in
anything useful, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're right that there are many questions that arise from considering
one of these courses of action.  My point here was to see if there was
any overarching feeling towards one or the other conclusions.

I think you mistook me (or someone) about assigned duties, though. The
word "assigned" may have a randomness or arbitrariness in your world,
but to me it means the same as variable assignment in programming.

You're also jumping to conclusions about there having to be a single
person with any given responsiblity.  People burning out and/or
ragequitting is a huge concern to me, and something we need to work
hard to systematically avoid.

But the reason you haven't heard any of those thoughts from me in this
thread is because this all jumps way ahead of the fundamental
argument, about whether we expect everyone here to pitch in, or
whether we can, as a community, make a positive statement about how
some people should be able to be here and just use the tools.

There's a huge difference between a community explicitly saying, "yes
you can be here and use our stuff, don't worry about fixing it,"
versus "I hate when people show up and don't fix things!"

To say that we're just arguing over whether to keep the status quo is
a gross misunderstanding of the fundamental argument.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:33 PM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
> 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.
> -hep
> 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
> --
> hep
> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472

Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com

skype: nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list