[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleepers

Wed Jan 29 00:25:28 UTC 2014

We did some things at the Hacker Dojo that reduced the number of sleepers
significantly.  There's still 2 homeless that are sleeping at the Dojo but
it's less than before.  We disabled our free wifi at night and we made it a
rule that only members can be present after 10pm.  It wasn't strictly
enforced or anything, but it still reduced the number of transients
significantly.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe we should have a member party at night when we find some sleepers
> and confront them then and there.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ronald Cotoni
> Systems Engineer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>

-- 
Dean Mao
dean.mao at hackerdojo.com
Come visit us, we love new people!
www.hackerdojo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140128/ea13d0a7/attachment.html>