dharlette at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 21:14:46 UTC 2014
I'm very much opposed to your proposal as it's currently written; it reads
as if you're saying that there should be alternatives to banning people for
sleeping, but as we don't currently have a policy of auto-banning people
for sleeping a specific policy of offering alternatives is unnecessary and
only serves to be confusing and take up meeting time.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi List,
> Al, let me think about your advice. I agree that my proposal is
> accurately described as vague. But that it is purposeful vague because
> that reflects reality. In life, there are some concepts that are vague
> but still express broad principles. The community view on sleeping at
> Noisebridge is currently vague but I think there are some broad principles
> of agreement..
> I have tried to articulate what I believe is consensable: that many agree
> sleeping at Noisebride is taking up too much energy at meetings, that
> sleeping at Noisebridge is harming the space, but that gray areas exist,
> that some "sanctioning" event should be triggered by sleeping at
> Noisebridge, but the actual "sanction" should depend on the circumstances.
> My consensus proposal says that there should be some "sanction" for
> sleeping at Noisebridge, but that they should be effected only after
> considering the full circumstance, and therefore the range of "sanctions"
> should be broad. Maybe the sanction is only a verbal warning that people
> are going to be watching if your are sleeping too often. Or on the other
> end, it looks like your are not hacking but are are setting up residency
> there, our lease doesn't allow that and that residency threatens the
> existence of Noisebridge, so a strict sanction is appropriate.
> Al, I'll consider your advice, but I would not want a specific
> actionable proposal that would act as a "sentencing guidelines" based on
> 30 different sleeping scenarios. I want to trust the wisdom of the group
> to implement an answer based on the broad principles that sleeping should
> have some response from the community, but the sanctions could vary widely.
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey Greg, the consensus proposal seems really vague: I'm not sure what
>> the actual policy or guidelines it proposes are. Do you want to take that
>> off the consensus item list and instead have it as a discussion item at the
>> meeting? The consensus proposals are really for actionable and
>> clearly-worded policy, but it looks more like you'd like to have a
>> conversation on it to determine what the policy should be.
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Thank you Monad,
>>> I have a consensus proposal<https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_Consensus_Items>up for consideration that asks for circumspection and "slack" for people
>>> found sleeping when it is due. It is a purposefully a soft measure that I
>>> hope can get support from all ends of the spectrum on this issue.
>>> Many members of the community will feel that my proposal does not go far
>>> enough to be a solution on sleeping at Noisebridge, and there may be
>>> laissez fairests who favor unrestrained sleep locations. But I think
>>> that is its strength. A workable compromise. I ask you to consider it
>>> as a way to address the sleeping issue, while being caring and considerate
>>> that people are finding it hard to find a place to lay their head down to
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Paul Monad <immonad at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> The only tool we have at the moment is: personally wake them, ask if
>>>> they are sponsored then ... , or asking them to leave and come to the next
>>>> meeting. Jake pointed out certain individuals should be given slack for a
>>>> short time. Circumspection and discretion is mandatory.
>>>> They invariably say they were asleep for a very short time. If left
>>>> alone, is soon back asleep.
>>>> As many as possible should speak directly with the problem individuals
>>>> because this is a community of doers. It shouldn't be the efforts of the
>>>> few. Perception is important.
>>>> Anyone who wants to participate but have transportation problems please
>>>> contact me.
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> Let's stay in touch. Greg
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Let's stay in touch. Greg
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss