[Noisebridge-discuss] why would hackers come to noisebridge?

Thu Mar 13 16:57:50 UTC 2014

Double Union indeed has many, many more members than Noisebridge. Even
though they're is far more closed off and exclusive than Noisebridge,
they've managed to create a large community in a very short amount of time.

While I'm happy for their success, I'm also a bit depressed: those are
people who could have been going to Noisebridge. But they don't, because NB
isn't a place they want to be. The UU space is just a few blocks away for
crying out loud.

I see this as a huge missed opportunity and an obvious sign that things as
they've been is Not Okay.

-Al

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:

> Another interesting point is that there is a new feminist hackerspa ce in
> San Francisco called double union.  They have a smaller space but yet are
> not open 24/7 and I would bet that they have a different set of problems.
> They also have more members than noisebridge I believe.  Why is that?   We
> should have way more since we are a way bigger space but that is not the
> case.
>  On Mar 13, 2014 9:15 AM, "Ronald Cotoni" <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That sound extremely reasonable but certain (now) Council Members blocked
>> proposals for just that and then when we finally got that, it was changed
>> weeks later.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Jessica Ross <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a reason why there's 24 hour access? It seems like you guys
>>> can't staff it appropriately for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> TBQH part of a hacker space is trying new things.  All of the
>>>> hackerspaces on the planet have different sets of issues and deal with them
>>>> differently.  An approach in one place may not work very well elsewhere.
>>>>  So I submit to you this is a different form of hacking.  Policy hacking.
>>>>  Trying different methods until we find the one that fits for us.  I am not
>>>> sure what is happening with Consensus but it would be nice if we had a
>>>> board that got us things. By things, I mean making sure the bathrooms were
>>>> clean either by doocracy or by paying someone to do it.  Making sure the
>>>> sprinkler system works.  Making sure we have fire extinguishers.   Making
>>>> sure people are respecting the space.  Usually this could be done by
>>>> doocracy but with people like you leaving Mark, that is a pipe dream.   And
>>>> for noisebridge, which is 24/7 (sudroom which is not) there are different
>>>> issues that you don't have to deal with.  You may or may not find yourself
>>>> in the exact same situation with a bigger space.   I would strongly suggest
>>>> reading over the past few years of meeting notes and seeing if you see any
>>>> similarities between sudoroom and noisebridge since sudoroom is mildly
>>>> based on noisebridge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Torrie Fischer <
>>>> tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 13, 2014 07:19:04 Marc Juul wrote:
>>>>> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>>>> > > well, you're doing more to fix the infrastructure than I have
>>>>> lately, but
>>>>> > > that is not the kind of problems i'm talking about.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > my complaint is that the culture of noisebridge has become so
>>>>> > > uninteresting
>>>>> > > and unrelated to hacking that it is bordering on irrelavent. The
>>>>> fact that
>>>>> > > you are volunteering your time to maintain the internet at a
>>>>> homeless
>>>>> > > shelter is quaint, but it doesn't change the fact that most
>>>>> hackers don't
>>>>> > > want to go there anymore.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > there are two categories of reasons why a hacker would want to go
>>>>> to
>>>>> > > noisebridge:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 1> other hackers are there, and people they can relate to and share
>>>>> > > interesting conversation with, or just be around while working on
>>>>> projects
>>>>> > > of their own.  People are there experimenting on things, hardware
>>>>> software
>>>>> > > and other, and one might learn something or teach something or
>>>>> make new
>>>>> > > friends with similar interests.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 2> there is a "safe space" with technical infrastructure.  This
>>>>> means that
>>>>> > > people who refuse to be HIGHLY accountable for problematic
>>>>> behavior are
>>>>> > > simply not permitted to be present (a much higher standard than we
>>>>> have
>>>>> > > now).  Oh and lets not forget at least one usable bathroom with a
>>>>> decent
>>>>> > > toilet seat and toilet paper.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > This also means that the technical infrastructure is in place and
>>>>> usable.
>>>>> > > For software people this means the internet works and there are
>>>>> outlets,
>>>>> > > clean places to sit (with decent posture, not fall-in couches) and
>>>>> tables
>>>>> > > for laptops and room to work with others.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > For hardware this means that tools are more than just the bottom
>>>>> of the
>>>>> > > barrel (try finding a pair of scissors or a phillips screwdriver)
>>>>> and that
>>>>> > > there are actually nice things (a soldering iron with a temperature
>>>>> > > control
>>>>> > > instead of $2 china disposable irons), AND more advanced tools are
>>>>> > > available such as microcontroller programmers, blank
>>>>> microcontrollers,
>>>>> > > and other electronic hardware for raw material.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Noisebridge used to have a great collection of microcontrollers and
>>>>> > > programmers and breadboards and jumper wires and advanced
>>>>> electronic
>>>>> > > tools,
>>>>> > > but all of that stuff was REPEATEDLY taken down from the top shelf
>>>>> and
>>>>> > > scattered into the e-waste piles, and then thrown away.  Yes, our
>>>>> > > microcontroller and programmer collection has made its way to the
>>>>> trash.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > categories 1 and 2 are related;  if a hackerspace has one without
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > other, hackers still may not decide to go.  Certainly I think both
>>>>> are
>>>>> > > equally important.  I also feel that at this time, and for too
>>>>> long,
>>>>> > > noisebridge has not had either.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > P.S. please notice that ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO HELP IS TO
>>>>> GO TO
>>>>> > > NOISEBRIDGE MORE OFTEN.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Since reading the policy that visitors to noisebridge are required to
>>>>> > have a member vouch for them at all times, I no longer feel welcome
>>>>> at
>>>>> > noisebridge. I know that several others feel the same way.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I remember Jake's original suggestion related to this. The idea was
>>>>> > that anyone asking a visitor to leave would first have to ask if any
>>>>> > member is willing to vouch for the visitor to stay, and only if
>>>>> no-one
>>>>> > vouches can the non-member be asked to leave. That is reasonable.
>>>>> > Putting the responsibility on the visitor of having a member
>>>>> pre-vouch
>>>>> > for them at all times is both unwelcoming and unreasonable.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Now, I'm seeing one of the board members implying that the board will
>>>>> > no longer be passive, which I take it to mean that noisebridge is no
>>>>> > longer ruled by consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just an associate member of noisebridge on the other side of the
>>>>> US with
>>>>> no real influence, or even a desire to get involved, so here is my
>>>>> $0.02 based
>>>>> on my previous position of being an officer of SYNHAK, and our
>>>>> terrifyingly
>>>>> heavy-handed and pre-emptive board that was elected a few weeks ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that it is possible and somewhat important for the management
>>>>> of a
>>>>> hackerspace to be active while still respecting the wishes of the
>>>>> membership.
>>>>> The board and officers should still be held responsible to the
>>>>> membership by
>>>>> the community. Noisebridge bylaws permit the removal of the board,
>>>>> should it
>>>>> come to that:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/bylaws#c._Removal_of_Directors
>>>>>
>>>>> It is never a good idea for the board to get to such a point that
>>>>> demands for
>>>>> resignation or removal start showing up (see synhak's discuss@ for
>>>>> many
>>>>> tears), so I imagine that the consensus process would still be
>>>>> respected.
>>>>>
>>>>> SYNHAK is experimenting with a few procedural changes with our
>>>>> governance
>>>>> structure in the next few weeks in an attempt to curb the decision
>>>>> making
>>>>> abilities of the board and officers. First, an amendment to our bylaws
>>>>> that
>>>>> essentially states that the membership runs the space:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The powers not delegated to the Officers of SYNHAK by these Bylaws,
>>>>> nor
>>>>> prohibited to the members through The Board or these Bylaws are
>>>>> reserved to
>>>>> the Membership."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds a bit 10th amendment-ish, yeah. It has no real effect on the
>>>>> corporation other than to explicitly state that the membership is in
>>>>> charge.
>>>>> The Board still legally retains absolute power and can do things like
>>>>> set a
>>>>> corporate alcohol and drug policy, approve a new lease, strip
>>>>> membership from
>>>>> individuals, pass a bylaw amendment that nulls this, etc. It does,
>>>>> however,
>>>>> give the membership some control over what the management does.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second component of this is an upcoming modification to our
>>>>> consensus
>>>>> process which is roughly based off of Noisebridge's. It adds three
>>>>> constraints
>>>>> on blocking consensus: One person may block consensus for no longer
>>>>> than 6
>>>>> weeks, an indefinite block can only happen with the support of a total
>>>>> of
>>>>> three members, and the reason for a block must be clearly and
>>>>> explicitly
>>>>> written in the meeting minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is required to approve of the reason for a block, but this
>>>>> prevents a
>>>>> single person from stopping the entire process without having to put
>>>>> the
>>>>> effort in to convince others why their position is valid. While a
>>>>> proposal is
>>>>> under a block, the community is encouraged to figure out the best way
>>>>> to reach
>>>>> consensus on the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're worried about consensus being steamrolled by the board,
>>>>> perhaps
>>>>> those concerns are best addressed by asking the board to explain how
>>>>> they feel
>>>>> Noisebridge's governance process fits in with their plans. Reaching
>>>>> consensus
>>>>> about respecting consensus, if you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It makes me both sad and angry that noisebridge has become a place
>>>>> > where hackers don't feel welcome.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If anyone wants to help build a hackerspace similar to what
>>>>> > noisebridge used to be, I invite you all too come join sudo room in
>>>>> > oakland as we prepare to move to a much bigger space (a space very
>>>>> > similar to noisebridge's current space!). We have open meetings every
>>>>> > Wednesday at 7 pm at 22nd and Broadway, located just two blocks from
>>>>> > 19th street BART.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jessica R. Ross
>>> jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ronald Cotoni
>> Systems Engineer
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140313/19796a5a/attachment.html>