[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleepers

Curtis Gagliardi gagliardi.curtis at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 21:24:24 UTC 2014


I thought I saw a suggestion before of kick them out and tell them to come
to a meeting.  Wouldn't the plan then be to discuss what should happen in
that individual case?  That sounded pretty reasonable to me.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>> sleep.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140128/3baa28f5/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list