[Noisebridge-discuss] The legalities.

[Kevin]

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