[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules
Torrie Fischer
tdfischer at hackerbots.net
Mon Mar 24 15:25:34 UTC 2014
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 17:26:59 Al Sweigart wrote:
> "Community standards" is just doublespeak for "rules that are optional".
> This is generally espoused by the crowd that likes sleeping overnight at
> Noisebridge, because it lets them continue sleeping overnight at
> Noisebridge.
When I hear "Community Standards", I hear "This is what is expected of you if
you want to participate in the community. If you don't feel like adhering to a
minimal standard of Excellent behavior, you're not welcome here so please
adapt or leave."
>
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140324/4dd53b63/attachment.sig>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list