[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules

Sun Mar 23 01:47:27 UTC 2014

Dan, it seems like your objections are such that it will be hard for anyone
else to change things to your liking: would you be willing to make changes
yourself and submit a pull request on github?

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Dan Cote <terminationshok at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's a long standing property of Noisebridge that we favor individual
> freedom over codified policies. I know that we are experiencing an identity
> crisis at the moment, and we are rethinking how we do things, which is
> good. All of the line items look fine to me, but their name and tone is
> authoritarian. I would not support this in it's current form and
> respectfully ask that it be reworked before being brought for consensus
> again.
>
> We have and have had community standards that are very similar to these,
> and my suggestion would be that we remove "house rules" and we clean up and
> revise "community standards."
>
> What we need is not official sounding rules, but consistent and
> compassionate reinforcement of our community standards. I would and do
> support anyone who asks someone to leave based on the behavior patterns
> listed on either list.
>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Community_standards
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Keving   I'd like to come to a good fair and workable solution.   I'm
>> somewhat reticent  because I'm concerned that collaborating will slide into
>> a process that is more about delaying than implementing a solution.
>>
>> But please contact me off-list and let's talk.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140322/84895c4b/attachment.html>