[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to open Noisebridge at sunrise

[kjs]

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.

Thanks for sharing Jarrod. I think it's great that you want to own this,
but I do not. I am generally the person at meetings, giving tours,
iterating over my version of membership and access, dwelling entirely in
the gray area of trust heuristics. Becoming a Member requires consensus
of the group, thus demonstrates to me the observed 'responsibleness' and
trustworthiness needed to curate Noisebridge 24 hours of the day. I am
vary wary of advertising this as a perk of membership. Rather, I prefer
to share and consider the qualities needed, not the title.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

During discussion of this topic at meetings, there were a number of
early birds expressing interest in being a part of our community,
wanting to come and hack before 11:00. That was one motivation for this
proposal. Broadly, I believe improving the interface at the door to
support adding fulltimeusers will help to reduce this tension. In the
current state there's an asymmetry and bottleneck at this stage, where
only a handful of folks can add fulltimeusers. Hence why I proposed both
removing the bottleneck by creating a more accessible interface and
bumping up user hours. I never saw this as risking progress or going out
of our way, though I hear and respect that many do. I hope that we can
find a middle way where all are content.

-Kevin

> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x8A61431E.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 14997 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20150501/a9e3c414/attachment-0002.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20150501/a9e3c414/attachment-0002.sig>