[Noisebridge-discuss] reasoning about the kitchen

[Norman Bradley]

With all of the shouting and posturing there is a person that is not 
here on the list. Cynthia washes dishes and on occasion helps cook stuff.

When I showed up on Monday she was washing dishes and cleaning up the place.

Oh also using one of our public computers close by the kitchen.

I don't think she is on this or another list.

You are entitled to your own opinion.
You are NOT entitled to your own facts.

Norman

On 4/14/2014 3:07 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
> Here is how I came to the conclusion that we should issue an ultimatum
> for cleaning up the kichen.
>
> (I don't care how we got to the situation we're in, and none of the
> following should be read as implying blame.)
>
> Read each point as a statement of fact, but please debate me on
> individual points if they seem incorrect.
>
> 1. Noisebridge's core mission has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> presence of a kitchen.
>
> 2. The kitchen has been stochastically maintained whilst being nearly
> constantly used.
>
> 3. The usage of the kitchen has been largely by those who don't
> understand the health hazards of misusing a shared community kitchen.
>
> (again: please don't read blame into these statements. it doesn't
> matter "who", it only matters "what".)
>
> 4. Because of (2) and (3), the kitchen has become a health hazard.
> (Many health hazards: mold, vermin, cross-contamination, etc)
>
> 5. There are many people who love having a kitchen.
>
> 6. There are many people who dislike or don't care about having a kitchen.
>
> 7. Those belonging to (6) mostly want to see the kitchen removed.
>
> 8. Those belonging to (5) mostly want to keep the kitchen.
>
> 9. Health hazards are Bad.  Like, "harassment" Bad.  Like, someone
> could get a bad disease Bad.
>
> ERGO, in the spirit of do-ocracy:
>
> 10. Those belonging to (5) ought to be putting work into making the
> kitchen NOT a health hazard.  The onus falls on the group who uses the
> space to do something about it.
>
> 11. Those belonging to (5) have thus far not shown initiative in
> protecting the resource.
>
> ERGO, in the spirit of do-ocracy:
>
> 12. Those belonging to (6) ought to incentivize those belonging to (5)
> to hurry up and do something about it.
>
> OK, does that make sense?
>
> This isn't about any authority trying to step in and "punish" people.
>
> This is about making it clear that if people want a thing to exist at
> Noisebridge -- particular one that is fairly peripheral to what
> Noisebridge is about -- they should take care of it.
>
> I have suggested that this group form a "kitchen working group" to sort it out.
>
> If it can't be sorted out, I don't think it's unreasonable for those
> who don't care about having a kitchen but are worried about the health
> hazards of the kitchen to do-ocratically dismantle it.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>