[Noisebridge-discuss] why would hackers come to noisebridge?
dean.mao at hackerdojo.com
Thu Mar 13 23:17:24 UTC 2014
The Hacker Dojo is arguably younger than noisebridge and probably less
"membership-oriented" compared to noisebridge, but our membership has
skyrocketed to the point where it's hard to find an empty chair during
normal business hours. We still have the occasional sleeper at night, but
because we are so fast at banning people, that problem usually doesn't
persist. When we banned patrick keyes, it only required a meeting of 3-4
people and it was a done deal. You guys should definitely reconsider how
you ban people. We didn't have to ask all of our directors for ban
approval to make it happen.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hep, your description of Noisebridge is spot on.
> Here's the difference that I think an active board can make: Noisebridge
> has taken to the extreme a philosophy that we shouldn't ban people or that
> we should give bad behavior effectively unlimited second chances. (The
> first person we banned was Patrick Keyes for sexually harassing multiple
> women, and even then it was pulling teeth to get him banned and not just
> suspended.) Consensus is what affords this: a tiny minority can block,
> delay, and in general abuse process to wear out their opponents.
> A board does not have to endlessly talk about policy and makes decisions
> by majority vote: a board can set policy and *gasp* make decisions. This
> includes suspending and banning people for bad behavior.
> (Obligatory footnote about abuse of power, "define bad behavior", tyranny
> of the majority, etc.)
> Consensus is what holds Noisebridge hostage: a 1% can have more power just
> because they have more volume, and meanwhile we can't get many new members
> because we are so afraid of extending this power to new people.
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am with what hep said. I am also with Naomi. This is a hackerspace.
>> Lets hack the system and figure out how to solve problems. I am also with
>> Al that I feel sad that UU had to even exist because noisebridge was not
>> safe enough or good enough. I also understand that some people just like
>> working with other females and don't even want to bother at this stage of
>> their lives. I just feel it was mostly a response to Noisebridge not being
>> safe and not the latter.
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am openly biased towards anarchism and lack of top-down control.
>>> But we can't keep shouting down the idea of "oversight" to address
>>> problems that Noisebridge has had for YEEAAARRRSSS when we've
>>> certainly given the Noisebridge traditional methods that long to fix
>>> For the record, I don't agree with the idea of direct
>>> people-management or in changing the way we arrive at decisions at
>>> Noisebridge. My idea of a positive change would be to have the board
>>> managing facilities and facilitating participation -- e.g. forming
>>> working groups. I believe these improvements will make a lot of the
>>> other crap die down naturally.
>>> And as it turns out, that's what we're going to do first.
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:46 AM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
>>> > And that would be different from what noisebridge has had in the last
>>> > how? as it stands, many women do not feel safe at noisebridge because
>>> > sexual assault and the past somewhat failure to deal with it in a
>>> > where women felt safe and listened to at nb. many valuable contributing
>>> > people have left nb because of its failure to address major
>>> > problems. if having a more active board helps to stop sexual abuse and
>>> > the culture more welcoming to those who would positively contribute,
>>> then i
>>> > am 100% down with active management. i would like noisebridge to be
>>> > somewhere i can bring friends to interest them in hacking, bring my
>>> > childrens' school championship robotics team to inspire them to the
>>> > victory, not a place where i am fearful to go on my own because there
>>> are no
>>> > protections or infrastructure to ensure basic safety.
>>> > -hep
>>> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Torrie Fischer <
>>> tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> I think it is important to note that in the context of a hackerspace,
>>> >> there is
>>> >> a difference between managing the infrastructure and managing the
>>> >> who
>>> >> hack on the infrastructure.
>>> >> From experience, just saying "active management" easily leads to bad
>>> >> and, uh, rather verbose mailing list threads.
>>> > --
>>> > hep
>>> > hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>> > dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>> skype: nthmost
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> Ronald Cotoni
>> Systems Engineer
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
dean.mao at hackerdojo.com
Come visit us, we love new people!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss