[Noisebridge-discuss] that's all folks

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Tue May 13 22:09:33 UTC 2014

Reports of everything you just said have been greatly exaggerated on
the mailing list.

What happens on the mailing list has been participation from people
who aren't spending nearly as much time, or forming nearly as cohesive
bonds, as those who spend many days of their weeks at the space.

So if your entire experience of NB comes down to following the mailing
list, then you don't really know what's happening with Noisebridge.

And I doubt that will change.  The people who want to hang out at the
space all day tend not to want to be on the mailing list.  They're
good people who want to Do all day and don't want to wax philosophical
or even complain.

Visit the space sometime and see for yourself.  Or, don't, and
continue being disillusioned.


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Danny Dismal <dannydsml at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes let's marginalize those already marginalized even more because who the
> fuck has time to help those bums right? Noisebridge could of been a great
> place for relearning and finding value in all people who wanted to be there
> but instead it became a house of have and have not with the haves snorting
> down their noses. Not one of those who feels they have the right to the
> place ever looked to help others who came there at first because they felt
> excited to be accepted and to find a way to earn and change the world they
> lived in only to come to realize they weren't wanted. Many of them felt they
> had been lied to and in a way Noisebridge is one big lie about changing the
> world and what it really has become is a place of self congratulatory
> patting on the backs while reinventing the wheel again. Even though I
> haven't been there in a year I've been following the posts and reading about
> what's happening and from what I've seen it's gotten even worse. We are
> doomed because every effort to make changes turns into some petty fight for
> exclusive rights to have a say in what goes on.
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Josh Juran <jjuran at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Josh
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

skype: nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list