[Noisebridge-discuss] access for members and associate members at all hours

[Jeffrey Carl Faden]

Yes, agreed. No one wants members to ONLY be allowed in the space for any
amount of time.


On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's just a misunderstanding, I've confirmed this w/ Jeffrey (unless
> I'm completely off my rocker here, Jeffrey).
>
> Can we all just agree not to use the phrase "member's only hours" from now
> on?
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2014, Naomi Most wrote:
> >
> >> What?  Who's talking about "member's only hours"?
> >
> >
> > On Sun May 11 Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
> >
> >> I think if we're able to demonstrate a working RFID solution for the
> main
> >> door and elevator door, it will be that much easier to propose what will
> >> need to be a change in rules: the re-introduction of members-only hours
> (but
> >> for associates, too). That will be the final hurdle preventing this
> system
> >> from actually going live.
> >>
> >> Once members-only hours are reinstated, there's nothing that's stopping
> >> associate and full members from exercising their power to remove
> non-members
> >> from the space, just like they should have been doing the last time
> this was
> >> attempted, and should he doing now with the "unvouched". But an actual
> >> computer-controlled change in how the space operates would help to
> reinforce
> >> that these rules are officially in effect.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 12 May 2014, Naomi Most wrote:
> >
> >> We're only talking about putting a lock at the front door that only
> >> opens for people who have the right key, and those people will happen
> >> to be Members and Associate Members.  This puts a forcing-function on
> >> the "sponsorship" concept on activities happening between certain
> >> hours of the night.  (I would put it at midnight, personally.)
> >
> >
> > I think the number of people with a physical key to the front door, who
> are
> > not welcomed hackers, is very low.  Furthermore, the few (if any) people
> who
> > may have keys but are not welcome will cease to use their key once they
> see
> > that none of their friends are at NB anymore, and that they can't do the
> > kinds of bad things they want to do in the space anymore.
> >
> > Please see my last post for a checklist of improvements that can be made
> to
> > the door and access control that DON'T involve changing the key.
> >
> > keep in mind that if you force-function "sponsorship" before people have
> > access to the space, we will accidentally cut off access to new people
> who
> > don't know anyone until after they're already in the space being
> excellent.
> > I think that is a serious no-go zone.  But i agree that we should control
> > access so that people can only be buzzed in by members/associate members,
> > which corresponds with implicit sponsorship (until the person who buzzed
> > them in may choose to end sponsorship)
> >
> >
> >> Jake, I'm a little saddened by your post, because I think people who
> skim
> >> the mailing list will read it and have their suspicions about NB's
> >> exclusiveness confirmed, when AGAIN it's just a misunderstanding.
> >
> >
> > please don't get dramatic on me Naomi.  and if you're so worried about
> what
> > people think that by reading the list they will get turned off of
> visiting,
> > i'm wondering what you think the space itself looks like.  Last time i
> > visited it looked horrible, literally the worst i've ever seen it.
> >
> >
> >> We're not having Member's Only Hours.  End of story.
> >
> >
> > tell jeffrey.
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140512/83ec85cc/attachment.html>