[Noisebridge-discuss] that's all folks
jjuran at gmail.com
Tue May 13 20:50:19 UTC 2014
On May 13, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I truly believe that the space began to seriously unravel when the community erected associate membership rules, access policies and bureaucratic harassment doctrines as a substitute for true excellence.
> Me too.
I would have disagreed if instead of "when" you'd written "because". Associate membership, members' hours, and even the entry keypad were reactions to Noisebridge being occupied by people whose presence materially reduced its utility and subjectively but palpably detracted from its ambiance. I suspect that, if we had attempted no corrective action, the space would have begun to unravel in any case. I'm asserting that the access policies were not the cause of the unraveling, but an effect of it.
I think our biggest fault lay in failing to respond promptly and decisively. Instead of unifying as a community to face an unprecedented threat, we lapsed into bickering and infighting. I don't see the disagreements as being interpersonal so much as between competing ideologies, e.g. lock-down-the-space pragmatism vs. locks-only-encourage-breakins idealism. Although passive-aggressive vigilante sabotage masquerading as do-ocracy didn't do us any favors.
There's no going back. Noisebridge needs to say who and what it is now, in a way that communicates to the people who will be a part of it.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss