[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules

Wed Mar 19 23:55:51 UTC 2014

On March 19, 2014 12:19:44 PM PDT, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin,
> No one said Folsom prison for naptime.
> 
>  Are you - or are you not, going to include prohibiting sleeping at
> Noisebridge in your version of the house rules.?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> > On March 19, 2014 11:45:24 AM PDT, Gregory Dillon
> <gregorydillon at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Tthe meeting notes say
> > >  Kevin is willing to accept prohibiting sleeping at Noisebridge,
> > > - Will that be part of your proposal?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On March 19, 2014 11:07:24 AM PDT, Jessica Ross
> > > <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Why can't you guys rebut this with "It's against the terms of
> the
> > > > > lease and
> > > > > could get us evicted"?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's BS that you're even still debating this!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Al Sweigart
> > > <asweigart at gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kevin is against banning sleeping at the space because he
> and
> > > his
> > > > > friends
> > > > > > like to sleep at the space. He helped build the "hacker
> stacker"
> > > > > bunk beds
> > > > > > that were in the space which, unsurprisingly, were used for
> more
> > > > > than just
> > > > > > short naps in the space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kevin will single-handedly block any measure to ban sleeping
> > > without
> > > > > > compromise, because consensus lets him do this. He is
> against
> > > any
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > punitive consequences because he knows that even if people
> are
> > > woken
> > > > > up and
> > > > > > told not to sleep at the space, they can just do so again
> the
> > > next
> > > > > night
> > > > > > (or just later that same morning).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, if the majority of Noisebridge members said they were
> fine
> > > with
> > > > > > people sleeping at the space, I would back down on my
> stance.
> > > > > Whereas Kevin
> > > > > > will barge in on a meeting an hour late and then get his
> way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The thing that gets me is that he doesn't even have to
> publicly
> > > > > defend his
> > > > > > unpopular view in order to get his way. (Note that he didn't
> > > mention
> > > > > > sleeping at all in his email on this thread, even though
> that's
> > > the
> > > > > > elephant in the room.) All he has to do is keep saying
> "there
> > > needs
> > > > > to more
> > > > > > discussion" week after week until the issue fades into the
> > > > > background once
> > > > > > more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Kevin Schiesser
> > > <bfb at riseup.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Brandon Edens:
> > > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The consensus of Noisebridge is that we have some house
> > > rules.
> > > > > You can
> > > > > >> read
> > > > > >> > about them here...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/rules/house-rules.md
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Enjoy!
> > > > > >> > Brandon
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > > > > >> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > > > > >> >
> > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I barged into the open meeting an hour late tonight and
> > > rejected
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> civility of passing this proposal, given I had aired
> > > unaddressed
> > > > > >> concerns. Discussion on the proposal was reopened, hence
> > > > > Noisebridge has
> > > > > >> not come to consensus on 'house rules'.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I will be preparing an alternative draft. If anyone wants
> to
> > > > > >> collaborate, contact me via email or let's work though
> github.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Generally, I favor 'community agreements'. I oppose
> punitive
> > > > > measures,
> > > > > >> and do not believe punitive measure will positively
> transform
> > > > > Noisebridge.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If agreements are to be codified, we should start with the
> most
> > > > > >> abundantly clear agreements... We agree not to attempt to
> > > repair
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> elevator, not to go on the roof (unless maintenancing an
> > > antenna),
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> to go in the basement, not to go on the fire escape, not to
> > > live at
> > > > > >> Noisebridge. We also agree that projects kept on the hacker
> > > shelves
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> the SW corner of the space or kept in personal lockers
> belong
> > > to
> > > > > >> participants in the community and are not for general
> purpose
> > > > > hacking.
> > > > > >> <Add your own agreement>.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -Kevin
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jessica R. Ross
> > > > > jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > I'm very open to collaborating on a revised Draft of this
> document.
> > > >  Please read the meeting notes or try to understand what I wrote
> > > before
> > > > jumping in with critique. Polarization, accusation, and
> hyperbole
> > > are not
> > > > effective.
> > > >
> > > > For context...
> > > >
> > > > At every prior meeting I said that I had concerns with the house
> > > rules
> > > > proposal. Often, the agenda was too full of bannings to have
> > > substantive
> > > > discussion of my concerns. I was shocked to arrive late and hear
> > > consensus
> > > > was reached without having had opportunity for discussion. The
> group
> > > agreed
> > > > I was previously misunderstood, the proposal is not urgent, and
> that
> > > more
> > > > discussion is needed.
> > > >
> > > > Hence more discussion and reaching out to the community.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Let's stay in touch.  Greg
> >
> > I'm ideologically opposed to criminalizing sleep at Noisebride. Many
> > organizations understand the benefits of rest, and allow sleep to
> occur
> > alongside work/hacking/creating.
> >
> > I recognize Noisebridge has problems Many have identified sleep as
> one. I
> > maintain its a symptom and not a root problem. However, I'm open to
> > experiments. We tried HackerStackers... If folks want to try
> prohibition, I
> > won't stand in the way.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Let's stay in touch.  Greg

Greg,
Do you want to collaborate? Do you like the existing wording on the prohibition of sleep at Noisebridge?

Left to my own devices I would first codify existing agreements, then add new agreements. This pattern allows us to test additional agreements independently.

-Kevin