[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise

[jarrod hicks]

I agree with Harry that "the statement 'Membership has only one perk -
Block rights for concensus.' a lie."

I think we should just own the fact that Membership has two perks now.
1. Full particpation in consensus 2. After hours access. I already say
essentially this when I give tours nowadays. I'm also fine with there
being some grey 'case by case basis' area here.

I don't think we should go out of our way, and risk the progress we
are making improving the space, to open up special access for users
who want to use Noisebridge but are not interested in being a greater
part of our community, they are already welcome during regular hours.
(Harry, I am not referring to you. I think you are excellent in the
space.) Not necessarily Membership status, but at least with a strong
track record of excellence, trust worthiness, and support of the
space. The sort of person who is assumed to be a member, even if they
are not.



On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> Who gave sid, harvey, rob 2.0, etc. access tokens? The pool of people who are able to create access tokens is small. I argue that more critical systems fall apart in a world where we assume that someone has issued a key to folks on the 86'ed list.
>
>
> On April 30, 2015 2:49:20 PM PDT, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net> wrote:
>>On Thursday, April 30, 2015 01:53:19 PM Harry Moreno wrote:
>>> Anyone object to allowing anonymous users early access to
>>Noisebridge?
>>
>>I do. Vehemently.
>>
>>The set of anonymous users includes such people as Harvey, Sid, Rob
>>2.0, and
>>other fun personalities from the 86 page. I'd be cool with giving
>>identified
>>people early access to Noisebridge. It isn't a requirement that the
>>information in the database be one's True And Legal Name (as the state
>>of
>>California calls it), but merely the nym one wishes to identify as. My
>>entries
>>in there say "tdfischer" and "tdfischer at hackerbots.net". You'd be hard
>>pressed
>>to find a court of law that would accept tdfischer as my "legal" name.
>>
>>I honestly don't care what name people give when they deanonymize
>>themselves
>>in the database. I only care that people can be held accountable for
>>shitting
>>in the woodshop. Consensus on all levels has it that shitting in the
>>woodshop
>>is unexcellent. If an anonymous person with a vendetta comes in and
>>shits in
>>the woodshop, how could it be prevented? Would we just hope that they
>>don't
>>shit in there again? Shouldn't it make sense that we would know who did
>>it and
>>tell the community "Hey folks, Jackhammer Jill shit in the woodshop.
>>Don't let
>>her back in."?
>>
>>Being listed in the access database as "member" is just a technical
>>implementation. Much like all attempts to programatically validate
>>someone's
>>Real Name as being two separate words with UTF-8 characters, it
>>completely
>>misses the reality of how things work. You still don't need to be a
>>member to
>>have 24/7 access to the door.
>>
>>However, you do need the consent of Noisebridge to have it. I'm pretty
>>much a
>>hardass about consenting to that and insisting that I get to know
>>someone and
>>feel comfortable with it before I'd be cool with them having 24/7
>>access.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss