[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleepers

Gregory Dillon gregorydillon at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 22:38:33 UTC 2014


If you offered a proposal that banned shooting heroin in the bathroom,  it
*could* pass.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is precisely the policy gridlock that consensus puts Noisebridge in:
> there's no way consensus can be reached to say "sleeping is banned" or
> "sleeping is allowed". As I've said before, we've had incidents of people
> shooting heroin in the bathroom, but we don't have a policy that says you
> can't shoot heroin in the bathroom. As such, the issue never gets resolved
> and conflict continues.
>
> Curtis, sleepers who are kicked out are never confronted about it at a
> meeting. They just come back to Noisebridge the next night to sleep.
> Perhaps we should have these individual confrontations at meetings.
>
> -Al
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> @Hannah   Thank you, for your insight into where the community stands.
>>  polarized without a "bridge".  I will  withdraw the proposal
>>
>> But still, correct me if I'm wrong, there is also  no consensed policy
>> against sleeping either   The idea was to begin defining a policy that had
>> safeguards from day one.
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>
>
>


-- 
Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140128/43bb3084/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list