[Noisebridge-discuss] Ban is unjust, being alienated, should be discussed at a Tuesday meeting with me present!
john.d.shutt at gmail.com
Mon Dec 22 06:14:10 UTC 2014
Bringing community drama to weekly meetings turns every meeting into five
hours of jury duty, which will burn out all but the most dedicated (or most
tedious and least busy) members of Noisebridge really, really quickly.
Rayc, the problem here is that your actions alienated and upset a lot of
members of the community and you shouted and stonewalled when they tried to
discuss it with you. Building a faction to duke it out in the weekly
meeting until people either give up or walk away from the space is a bad
response that harms the community. I say that as someone who really likes
you and respects what you've done in the space, especially welcoming and
helping new people when they come to visit.
Hackerspace politics is a boring game, and when it's filtered through
procedural weekly meetings it's heavily weighted in favor of the people
with the most free time and the most to lose: that is, people who have made
the physical space of Noisebridge into a life support system or their
"position" in the Noisebridge community a core part of their identity. If
anyone reading this finds that happening to them, please, take a step away
from the space and re-evaluate what you're doing. Noisebridge is a place
where you go to hack; it is a means to various ends, not an end in itself;
it can not fill those roles for you.
My tolerance for community drama is pretty close to zero, and my default
response to conflict at Noisebridge is to avoid engaging and just hack, or
stop coming to the space entirely if the problem is big enough that I don't
feel comfortable there. I think the tolerance of many people we want in the
space, people who are busy hacking on cool things, is *exactly *zero, and
if they're asked to wade through a bunch of bullshit just to come around
and hack a thing they will decide this is the wrong community for them and
they won't be wrong. That's why I'm opposed to bringing drama and long-form
banning discussions to the weekly meetings: It makes the main recurring
community event a draining and negative experience that has nothing to do
with hacking and burns out anyone who cares enough to come regularly.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
> I'm strongly opposed to discussing this at a Tuesday meeting. Literally any
> other time, like maybe a SSWG meeting on Monday would be good, but if this
> going to be discussed on a Tuesday, I've got other places to be.
> On Sunday, December 21, 2014 02:05:05 PM Robert Chu wrote:
> > Hello Noisebridge Community at Large,
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/86
> > "Was caught living on top of the building's elevator in February-2014,
> > was banned for 6 months as a warning. He was caught living in the space
> > again in December-2014. His health problems make it impossible to trust
> > what he will or not do in the future, since he is not taking care of
> > himself, and he has become severely disruptive to the Noisebridge
> > community. Rayc is no longer allowed in Noisebridge."
> > This is wrong and I want to discuss this at a Tuesday night meeting.
> > I was never living in the space in December. I did spend some nights over
> > night because A) No one gave me a key so I couldn't come in the morning
> > start early work regularly B) let the electricians in at a reasonable
> > C) Because there were hackers actually hacking at night on projects, and
> > had taken the role of being responsible for NB while they were there.
> A) I offered RAYC a key at least a week before any of this happened and you
> turned me down. I'm pretty sure that you hadn't approached anyone else
> getting a key either. You've been participating in Noisebridge for many
> by now, and he should know it isn't everyone else's responsibility to read
> minds and know who wants a key. Speak up and ask for one; don't foist this
> feeling of resentment on us, please <3
> B) I gave Neil an upstairs key when him and I were in the space at the same
> time. I don't think it was really communicated that he didn't get a new key
> when the lock was changed so it fell into our collective bin of "someone
> else's problem".
> Normally I fight hard to keep interpersonal conflict off of the mailing
> lists and
> even out of the tuesday meetings, so I won't continue discussion about this
> here. However, I'm totally not wanting to deal with this at all right now
> feel free to throw this subject at the mailing list until it sticks. Thats
> great idea and I can in no way see anyone ever getting really tired of it
> leaving Noisebridge because they just don't want to deal with crap that
> has nothing to do with them.
> This ain't about living at the space. Its not about who does and doesn't
> access. Its about RAYC becoming a massive time sink for everyone when we
> want to shut up and hack. Discussing whether or not he was living in the
> will not cause folks to see him as less of a time-sink. Quite the opposite
> really, since now folks have to read these diatribes on discuss@ and
> figure out
> whether or not its something legitimate to add. It would've been great to
> discuss keeping Noisebridge open while we're gone a bit more, but whenever
> topic came up RAYC's obsessive thoughts about the seekrit nosebridge cabal
> reared its head and we had to deal with that if any productive discussion
> to ever be had.
> I now present to you the comprehensive list of things that will get RAYC
> unbanned from noisebridge:
> * RAYC proves over the next decade that he's no longer a time-sink for
> Its vague, but thats it. Sorry if anyone thought this could be lawyered
> out by
> finding a loophole in policies or language or something.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss