[Noisebridge-discuss] access for members and associate members at all hours
jake at spaz.org
Mon May 12 22:09:21 UTC 2014
it's a good question, but the answer is that it's unavoidable for members
to take that responsibility.
if a person is in the space and causing trouble, and you ask them to
leave, and they don't have a sponsor, the member on the other side of the
room is assisting you by doing nothing. They are demonstrating that they
don't object to you asking this person to leave.
Ideally if the problem person is problematic, they will get up and come
assist you, or perhaps you brought them along with you, but by doing
nothing they (other member) are, in a sense, supporting your claim that no
member is sponsoring them (the problem person) and that they should leave.
If the other member chooses to sponsor the problem person, they will also
be accountable for things that person does while being sponsored. You can
ask your fellow member to make their guest stop doing X, and if it doesn't
happen you can have a discussion at the meeting about it with that fellow
member present. (you can't expect the same accountability from the
I think your question about a member "sweeping the space" looking for
nonmembers is a good one. I think the answer is that you should not look
for nonmembers, or non-sponsored people, but rather for people doing bad
things. If someone is doing something bad for the space or bad for morale
or whatever, you then proceed to ask them this:
(optional) 1. do you realize what you're doing is bad?
(optional) 2. will you please stop
3. do you have a sponsor here (don't ask "are you a member")
4. if they say no, you have the option of sponsoring them! If you think
they just need a little guidance and otherwise belong at noisebridge, go
ahead and sponsor them. Or ask if any member present wants to.
5. if they say they're a member, and you can't solve the problem, bring it
up at a meeting. If they're lying about being a member, or if the bad
behavior is serious, get some other members to help you solve the problem.
6. if they make up some bullshit, or question the legitimacy of the
imperial government of noisebridge, do what we usually do.
The point i'm making is that there is no responsibility relating to guests
that comes along with being a member, only the usual Excellent behavior.
The determination for this is talking about it at a meeting.
But there are Rights that come with membership, and those rights include
access to the space. So by definition, people who aren't members are
allowed to be in the space only with the permission of members who are
does that answer your question?
On Mon, 12 May 2014, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
> One thing I haven't heard discussed is the responsibilities, if any, that an associate member should agree to.
> There's nothing here that says that an associate member is required, or even expected, to enforce the "Noisebridge is open to associate or full members" policy.
> Should there be? Should they state that they agree to enforce the policy when they begin to ask for endorsements? Should there be concrete rules about what happens if
> an associate member allows people in without keeping track of them? Should they be warned? Stripped of their title? Or anything?
> I ask because Jake says that the social problems will only be solved by people like us showing up at the space and caring for the space in-person. But no tier of
> membership has officially pledged or even agreed to do this, or to abide by the access rules. I think it's just been generally assumed to be the right thing to do.
> Food for thought. I don't think anyone should be reprimanded for what they don't do. I think there'd be a heck of a lot less associate members if they had to agree to
> "enforce" the access rules. I've already called myself out for lack of spine in regards to that sort of thing, and I wouldn't be comfortable being constantly on the
> lookout while I'm at Noisebridge. I'm not the kind of person who wants to ruin the day of someone who isn't actively causing harm.
> Taking it one step further, doesn't it sound extremely un-excellent for any kind of member to be making a full sweep of the space, asking everyone in attendance if
> they're members, associate members, or guests thereof, and being asked to take off if they're not? Seems like a total buzzkill move, but it would still be allowed
> given the current rules, right?
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, Jake, you're absolutely right about this:
> > on another note, i see that people have been talking about the RFID thing as if it is going to solve social problems. I don't believe that's true. I
> think it's a great project and worth doing, but ultimately the social problems we are dealing with will ONLY be solved by people like us showing up at the
> space, and caring for the space in-person.
> Don't worry, the people who are actually working on this stuff right
> now do understand this. We're just not going to let that stop us from
> doing some experiments.
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What? Who's talking about "member's only hours"?
> > 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.)
> > 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.
> > We're not having Member's Only Hours. End of story.
> > --Naomi
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden
> > <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I agree with your overall assessment, Jake. I would also support the
> >> language change in your proposal which more clearly defines the roles and
> >> privileges of our member tiers. I agree that anyone who wants to be able to
> >> work at Noisebridge should be able to do so at any time, and if they are not
> >> a member, then one should sponsor their presence.
> >> I disagree, though, that your proposal will always make it easier for a
> >> member to approach someone and ask them to leave. That is because,
> >> regardless of what they are doing, the people who abuse the space can often
> >> make excuses that are hard to refute:
> >> - "I'm an associate member / full member, my name just isn't on the wiki"
> >> - "Oh, so-and-so said I could be here (but they left|but they don't
> >> exist|but I'm lying)"
> >> - "Why are you singling me out?"
> >> - "I don't have to tell you my name or anything about me"
> >> - or they might threaten you with harm or otherwise scare you.
> >> The reason I still think an RFID system should be in-place is because while
> >> it is important to enforce these roles at all times, it's not always
> >> possible. A second layer of computer-controlled access control will make it
> >> harder for people to make their way into the space when those who are
> >> available to sponsor them are less available.
> >> Bruce Schneier is keen to use the phrase "security theater" to describe
> >> systems that only seem to enforce restrictions but can easily be
> >> circumvented by those with enough intent. And if you'll notice in the other
> >> thread I've responded to, I've labeled this RFID system as such. It is not a
> >> silver bullet, but it might make it easier to get the job done.
> >> If we're being honest, if associate and full members are the only ones who
> >> should ever be able to enter the space on their own, then it would make
> >> sense to give them all access on this RFID system and keep the door locked
> >> 24/7 (just like the gate is). This technology won't solve our problems, but
> >> all-hours access restriction seems like the most effective way of keeping it
> >> relevant. Wouldn't you agree?
> >> (BTW, having just written the last paragraph, I'm not saying I agree with
> >> such a drastic measure. But anyone who's serious about members-only access
> >> should see why it makes sense.)
> >> Jeffrey
> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> >>> I saw mention of the "members only hours" concept again recently and i am
> >>> sad that people don't remember why that failed. It was terrible.
> >>> I recommended from the start, and i still recommend, having the same
> >>> policy at all times. There was actually a nice hacker visiting from Germany
> >>> who was kicked out of noisebridge only because it was 11PM and people were
> >>> just following orders. The after-hours thing is a dead idea.
> >>> I really think noisebridge should pass my last proposal, which makes it
> >>> really straightforward who can be in the space, at all times:
> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040268.html
> >>> "Noisebridge is open to Members, Associate Members, and guests sponsored
> >>> by same, at all times. Any person who is not one of the above may be
> >>> asked to leave if no Member or Associate Member present wishes to
> >>> sponsor them at that time, with no other justification being necessary.
> >>> People coming to Noisebridge who don't know anyone should be introduced
> >>> to members who are present so that sponsorship can occur if members
> >>> present choose to do so at that time. Noisebridge should present itself
> >>> as 'open to public visitors and guests as often as possible'"
> >>> on another note, i see that people have been talking about the RFID thing
> >>> as if it is going to solve social problems. I don't believe that's true. I
> >>> think it's a great project and worth doing, but ultimately the social
> >>> problems we are dealing with will ONLY be solved by people like us showing
> >>> up at the space, and caring for the space in-person.
> >>> Some people mentioned they were at the space the other day, talking about
> >>> the RFID stuff, while two people were sleeping in the kitchen, and They Did
> >>> Nothing. I understand why, because for too long Noisebridge has not
> >>> provided an effective framework for justifying or supporting the ejection of
> >>> people for sleeping, or general misuse of the space. My proposal above
> >>> addresses that problem, in a practical way that eliminates the blame game.
> >>> With the above proposal, a person can be asked to leave without an
> >>> accusation of sleeping or habitating or anything like that - simply because
> >>> there is no member present who wishes to sponsor them. It makes it much
> >>> easier to ask someone to leave, which is the only way we can take our
> >>> hackerspace back from mission st. chaos.
> >>> in the words of Bruce Schneier:
> >>> "If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you don't
> >>> understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> > --
> > Naomi Theora Most
> > naomi at nthmost.com
> > +1-415-728-7490
> > skype: nthmost
> > http://twitter.com/nthmost
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> skype: nthmost
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss