[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleepers

Madelynn Martiniere mmartiniere at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 01:10:58 UTC 2014


+1 I find this idea most excellent.


On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

A few years ago I suggested making the space "members only" after midnight
to reduce the number of people using Noisebridge as a crashpad. I think
that's a good idea.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Dean Mao <dean.mao at hackerdojo.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140128/79ded33c/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list