[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleepers

Tue Jan 28 23:03:56 UTC 2014

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140128/b659415f/attachment-0003.html>