[Noisebridge-discuss] A proposal regarding RAYC in the space.

jarrod hicks hicksu at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 03:04:18 UTC 2014

Howdy y'all.

I have been working through my conflicted feelings regarding RAYC's
actions and what the council could possibly do regarding them. For



I have come up with a draft of a proposal that I hope may lead to a
satisfactory resolution for the Noisebridge community.

I believe that RAYC's actions put the community at risk and are
reasonable grounds for a ban, if that is how it must be. However, RAYC
has built a considerable amount of goodwill by their work in the space
to maintain and improve it. It would be a bummer to remove someone
from Noisebridge whom has demonstrated such enthusiasm for it, if they
are still eager to hack at Noisebridge.

I suggest that RAYC's goodwill in the space is enough to buy them a
second chance to be part of Noisebridge and that this goodwill is now
spent. I propose that RAYC be allowed to enter the space and
participate in the community if they agree to the following

1. If RAYC sleeps (napping and so on) again at Noisebridge or its
adjacent spaces, they will be automatically banned.

This one is for RAYC. While some flexibility around the allowance of
sleeping exists, in practice, at Noisebridge. RAYC has broken the
trust extended to anyone who works at Noisebridge to use the space
excellently. By agreeing to this, RAYC agrees that it is reasonable
that the community now holds them to a higher standard due to their
actions and that they will meet that expectation.

2. RAYC will take a lead to educate, in an excellent manner, those who
will attempt to set up residency at Noisebridge explaining that such
actions are unacceptable.

This one is for Noisebridge. RAYC has significant knowledge of
Noisebridge and uses the space often enough for them to be in a good
position to identify and educate heavy and excessive users about our
community standards regarding living in the space. This does not grant
RAYC any more authority than any one of us has in the space and many
members already do this. Taking a lead on this task is a good start to
rebuilding the trust and goodwill of the community toward RAYC. In
time, and pending good results, the council may remove this explicit
requirement from RAYC. Of course, if RAYC fails to demonstrate a good
faith effort in this duty, a ban may be called at the council's
discretion. Agreement to this means that RAYC will, and is
specifically required to, work to protect the space from those who
would take advantage of its openness and RAYC will update the
community in this regard, when necessary.

If RAYC agrees to these conditions, it is my hope that the council
would withdraw the proposal to ban them. Hopefully, Noisebridge and
RAYC would both benefit from this arrangement.

Does this sound reasonable and appropriate?

Thank you for reading this.

Postscript: I think a temporary ban, without clear standards or
conditions to be met leaves Noisebridge in a similar position to what
it was in before, upon the banned persons return.

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list