[Noisebridge-discuss] The legalities.

Ceren Ercen ceren at ercen.com
Sun Apr 6 01:46:50 UTC 2014


+1
On Apr 5, 2014 9:31 PM, "Curtis Gagliardi" <gagliardi.curtis at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140405/68b05dc7/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list