[Noisebridge-discuss] [Drama] Fwd: [Noisebridge-announce] Important Noisebridge Procedural Changes

rachel lyra hospodar rachelyra at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 18:29:45 UTC 2014

This metric unfortunately falls apart when in a situation like I was in
with Jesse z, who was emphatic that smoking only certain types of dried
plants on the public sidewalk outside of Noisebridge was acceptable & safe
, while being so intoxicated on his own personal blend of drugs as to be a
threat to his own safety as well as that of others.

This metric, while having noble goals, can be gamed by any perpetrator
pointing their own finger, forming a circle of people claiming their safety
is endangered.

Seeking to provide a safe-as-possible space occasionally means deciding if
someone is being an asshole.

I'll mention now, since I cannot help but think of it every time I think of
Will, that he and Jesse z called the cops INTO the space once to evict
cynthia from the bathroom.  She wasn't in there doing drugs, just hiding
from the actual people obligingly fulfilling her paranoia. This was during
I time when I regularly saw groups of people rally to kick out someone who
was say, stealing, or sleeping frequently at the space. Cynthia wasn't
doing those things, she was just a harmless nutjob.

I am sure, Will, that you have many good qualities but good enough asshole
metrics to reference off of might not be one of them, nor a cool head in a
stressful situation.

One tool I found particularly striking from Sudo room (god help me I am
suggesting Sudo room is doing something better than Noisebridge) was this
phrase - we value safe space over ideology. This phrase was incredibly
valuable because it suggested the hierarchy of relative values of two
things we hold dear, and thus was a machete in a thicket of arcane rules
that were being endlessly quibbled by 3 dudes who wrote them. People who
like to argue with each other should be allowed to do so, but.

When the rules are too complicated they are the domain of those who
maintain and understand them. A vital part of the Noisebridge screed is
built around keeping it simple enough to be understood & debated by
everyone. Whatever 'it' is, and whatever you crazy kids are up to with
yours, and whatever you are calling it nowadays.

The bad kind of drugs are the kind that make people feel unsafe in the

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:

> Have you ever actually put out an actual fire? Do you know how in theory
> or in practice or both?
> Is the goal here to put out the fire?
> Then fucking act like it, and take a minute to think about how to remove
> the fuel instead of running around like chicken little bemoaning how the
> sky is falling because the bad kind of drugs are taking over from the good
> kinds.
> One of my first all-night-hack sessions at Noisebridge in 2009 or so was
> accompanied by a quiet little hiss-crack all night long from goth kids in
> the library having a nitrous death guild afterparty. Why does Noisebridge
> have the wrong kind of people offering you the wrong kind of drugs now?
> What are the wrong kinds of drugs?
> Meth is bad, don't get me wrong. It's provably toxic to people who use it.
> I think it's interesting to try and contextualize increased meth use in the
> space with shifts in the broader socioeconomic context that supports
> nosiebridge.
> Want less homeless drug users doing drugs that make themselves worse?
> Build a better society.
> R.
> On Mar 26, 2014 7:09 AM, "Will Sargent" <will.sargent at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What Jessica said, in spades.
>> Noisebridge not only has people sleeping in the space on a regular basis,
>> it has people being offered meth in the space.
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043062.html
>> What I find really damning is not even that someone was offered meth in
>> the space.  It's the reaction that Monad had from the people in the space.
>>  No-one helped him.  Only one person even offered to identify him, and one
>> guy expressed the opinion that no-one should *ever* be banned.
>> If this is normal, tolerated behavior in the space now, then yes: shit is
>> on fire.
>> Will.
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Jessica Ross <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I hate to say it, but, from here, it looks like you guys are on fire.
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I would argue that a very fundamental part of Noisebridge charter is to
>>>> in fact listen to and attempt to incorporate rather than override a
>>>> dissenting opinion.
>>>> There is always time to mull things over, unless something is on fire.
>>>> Also, I would like to note the difference between formally and formerly
>>>> and humbly submit a pull request to the whole announcement due to whiplash
>>>> and confusion. What the fuck kind of members are we talking about, formal
>>>> ones? If I wear a tuxedo on the sixth Tuesday of a given month do I get a
>>>> say in how Noisebridge works?  Ah yes, do-ocratic voting. I hereby decree a
>>>> new class of Noisebridge members, the formal kind. Please discuss.
>>>> R.
>>>> On Mar 25, 2014 8:48 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why did you reply to this thread if you didn't want to talk about this
>>>>> publicly? You can't just say "Disregard" and expect that no one else will
>>>>> comment on this commandment.
>>>>>  I told Tom that I agreed with the proposal, so it's 4 out of 5.
>>>>> Your humble opinion aside, decisions do not require a unanimous vote
>>>>> of the board. The bylaws of Noisebridge don't say it does and have never
>>>>> said that. "Naomi does not agree" is not "the board does not agree".
>>>>> -Al
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Oh goody, let's make this public.
>>>>>> Al, the issues in question were proposed 7 hours ago, during which
>>>>>> time I was at work. Then I went to yoga.  Then I found when I decided
>>>>>> to check my email that about 10 different issues were all lumped
>>>>>> together in a single "proposal" and that 2 people had voted "+1" on
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> 2 + the person who proposed the changes = 3.  3 out of 5 is a
>>>>>> positive vote.
>>>>>> These changes were then implemented *immediately*.
>>>>>> IMHO, the board did not "agree", because "agreement" cannot occur in a
>>>>>> situation where discussion did not take place.
>>>>>> I have already put in a proposal within the board that proposals can't
>>>>>> be voted upon and carried out until one full week has passed.  I can't
>>>>>> believe I had to do that, but apparently some people think that
>>>>>> "agreement" can be reached without discussion.
>>>>>> Membership: discuss.
>>>>>> --Naomi
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20140326/b3050918/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list