Editing
Meeting Notes 2014 12 02
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== [[ Consensus Items History | Proposals from last week ]] == * ''RFID keys may be distributed in order to grant users access to Noisebridge. Keys should be seeded at the whim of the makers of the RFID access control system. Distributors of the keys should have the ability to distribute keys with two permissions: One permission grants actual access, the other permission grants the ability to distribute new keys with one or both permissions.'' ** Patrick: Lets discuss this. First, some background: Pre-reboot, Noisebridge had a problem with people abusing the space by using it, effectively, as a halfway house. Few of those people weren't contributing positively to the space. It brought a lot of entropy to the space, which also drove people who do belong at Noisebridge away from the space. This crisis caused the 2014 Reboot. The major issues Noisebridge faces is protecting the space from letting that happen again. Noisebridge used to be open all the time which allowed people who don't belong at noisebridge to be at noisebridge. This proposal is some way of finding a balance between keeping people who do want to contribute, while still protecting the space from entropy. ** Scotty - How does this work right now? ** Patrick: The top door is a physical key, different from the bottom. ** RAYC: Only a few select elite few have the ability to open the top lock whenever they please. Usually, people are here 24/7/365 to counteract that by keeping the space open for hacking. ** Scotty: Did it get closed last night? ** RAYC: Nope. People were hacking and we chose not to close it. ** Mo: I've been coming here for over a year. I've seen the change since before the reboot. The people who come here are awesome and there hasn't been any problem in the last month. Everything is working perfect and there are no problems. If people come here and cause problems, they don't see the place as it used to be and leave. ** Scotty: When was the last time we closed the space? ** Torrie: I've been hanging around the space late at night. It's never really been awful or bad. I was also in the space overnight pre-reboot, and it was completely different. I am a capital-M Member, but I trust the people I leave behind at the space to close the space, which has worked out without any significant issues whatsoever. It's been more than three weeks since we've intentionally shut down the space entirely, but we've soft-closed the space by asking untrusted people to leave. ** Teapot: One note about the particulars of this. I like the overall concept of having an RFID system to allow access and to distribute tokens. The way I understand is is that this proposal allows others to add folks to the space which would allow the trust tree to grow exponentially and eventually permit someone into the space who doesn't belong in the space. One adjustment would maybe be to be selective about who has the ability to issue RFID access. Perhaps an experiment of a fully functional RFID system before expanding too much more. ** RAYC: Historically, if anyone asked for a key they could have a key. It was like that for many years then problems started surfacing. There are still members in the community who are against the idea of locking the space down and making it totally restricted to certain groups. If there are problematic people in the community, they should be dealt with rather than blocking access. I feel that the current access policy is a form of discrimination, classism, etc. Previously there were a bunch of people making the space Members only hours where the only difference in access is those who have been consensed upon as a member. As for distribution of keys, I think there should be a better circle of trust model where not everyone is able to distribute keys. ** Patrick: I'm in favor of the space being as open as possible, but the problem with physical keys is that they cannot be easily revoked. Now at least we have the ability to revoke the access of bad actors. While the RFID system is unfinished, the folks with upstairs keys are terrified about what happens when a bad actor gets an upstairs key. The upstairs door is the only line of defence since the downstairs gate can be effectively considered gone. ** Mo: This space is an awesome space. Lots of folks use it, every week its different, every month its different. I like the idea of RFID, we just need to find out a way of implementing how to distribute keys. We should only give keys to human beings we know. It makes a difference when you walk in here and you know everyone and what they're working on. ** Teapot: With the idea of being able to revoke tokens, it'd be a good solution that would work to keep bad actors from having 24/7 access to noisebridge. I think before we get there, we'd want consensus on how tokens are revoked. ** RAYC: In Ye Olden Days, we had a keypad system where you could hand out a keycode. If you could find out which code contributed to letting someone in, you could cut off the entire branch of the trust tree. ** John: I think its a good idea to keep it limited to a small number of people who can give out codes, but we should be pretty liberal about giving out access. ** RAYC: There might be a mob mentality around the elite group of folks who can grant access to grant access. ** Patrick: There's a middle point where if you're around noisebridge enough, you'll run into the same people. ** Scotty: I think I have a different perspective on this. I actually think the situation with having a very limited set of top-door keyholders is good. I'm very heasitant to add more people to that set. When we've broadly given that ability to people, it leads to bad problems. Our current situation isn't too far off from being able to get into the space at all times of the day. It sounds to me like the space hasn't been closed 24/7 for the past few weeks. I'm wondering if we're viewing the top door as a status symbol, not so much as an access control issue. ** RAYC: There are a few other factors keeping us from slipping back into what we had before. There is a bigger number of people actually hacking on the infrastructure of the space. Also, compared to before, the quality of our tooling is a lot better than before the reboot. If you look at the number of folks here to just hack on things and learn, it is hella more. I've been hacking on the space for four years. I've noticed that now there are people hacking on things and the effect it has on unwelcome individuals coming to the space is tremendous. Now that there are more people hacking on things, it has been building on itself and bleeding over into evening hours. ** Scotty: I totally agree, but I think some of that may be springing forth from the limited number of upstairs keys. ** RAYC: The RFID system will likely be approached in a more eye-opening thing since it is electronics and people can effortlessly revoke and add new tokens. It has a very positive factor towards access control. I like where we are with limited keyholders, but the infrastructure and community dynamics aren't here yet for us to say "Lets scale it up to everyone." Lets keep it where we are +/- a small few of people. ** Mo: We should keep it open for the community, but closing it wouldn't make it Noisebridge. ** John: I'm trying to understand how the consensus proposal would change the current system and how it works. ** Torrie: It's not that different. We have a small number of people with upstairs keys, which is good and keeps us safe, but I agree with RAYC that we should perhaps add a few more people to that group. ** Mo: Many times I've been here to help, many times the electrician is here at 8am and we need to find a way to open up the space for him. ** RAYC: As for practicality, there are other spaces that are open 24/7/365 that don't experience the woes of Noisebridge. I want to point out that hacking doesn't end when the space closes.If we were in a safer neighborhood, we wouldn't have to worry about these dynamics. But because of what Noisebridge has been built on top of, to say that we're adding new barriers to entry would mean to say that we're patching exploits on top of NoisebridgeOS. Theres nothing stopping anyone from replacing the upstairs lock and handing out new keys. The current one didn't go through consensus. Anyone could doocratically change the lock and claim that the current lock was unexcellent. ** John: Is there anyone actually suggesting that they'll physically replace the lock? ** RAYC: There's been conversations. ** John: I'm wondering why we can't just give out a small number of keys right now. My worry is that the consensus process can get legalistic and we'd end up codifying this. ** RAYC: There are trusted people in the community who are saying that this is totally unexcellent and would want to put a new lock on the upstairs door to hand out keys with more gusto. They feel that unexcellence has been committed. ** Scotty: I'd like to revisit the meme of the hacker hopping off the plane and showing up at noisebridge at 2am. Thats a meme that keeps coming up; that we have to be open at 4am just to support these rando hackers who come off the plane. I don't think thats a particurally useful purpose considering how we live in the mission of SF. I think if someone comes to the space and sees that it is closed, they'll come back the next day and the space will still be there. Having a large number of people with access to the space early in the morning does not lead to good things. ** Torrie: We briefly had overnight members-only hours; in practice, this leads to the current system. It's more of a community issue: We need to make sure that only people who we trust to deal with the space get left in the space. Mo and RAYC have both done this excellently. The point is: It's about trust, and who you trust to be in the space. If you want to set strict hours or draw a line in the stand, it won't happen. ** Scotty: I didn't want to be misconstrued as saying there would be specific hours, but I don't want to think there should be broad access to everyone. ** Torrie: That's kind of how I've implemented it. ** RAYC: I've been hacking the tours I give because of things moving around. When people ask about Noisebridge, I explain that after hours we ask untrusted people to leave the space. The space can close at any time when anyone thinks there are a number of people around that nobody wants to deal with. As for the hackers from other spaces thing, I'm not necessarily presenting that as an argument, but as a desirable outcome of whatever access control policy we decide on. As for the community, I think we can represent the idea of a circle of trust in the system that we're building. ** John: I wanted to make a meta-point. Lower-case-c consensus is usually better than big C consensus. Rules are important to put in place to stop abuses when they're found. For example, the harassment policy. I think it would be important to put a specific rule in place to specify who can grant access if the access granters became tyranical. That isn't the case, so I think we can discuss it offline and change it if we need to. ** Torrie: Talking about the circle of trust issue - I've only been around the space physically for about 5-6 months, but in that time I've noticed changes in the circle of trust. There are people who don't necessarily trust the late night crew, and want to shut down the space at night because that's what The Rules say. Two of these people were in the space recently, and I asked them if they wanted to shut down the space overnight before leaving. They said no, despite having wanted to close the space and ask a certain person/people(?) to leave two months prior. ** Patrick: All of this discussion is completely worthless if trust is not found amongst the people in the community. This proposal has been a very good vehicle for discussion. The space has been open for something like a month non-stop, and the trust relationships have maintained the quality of the space. Without people and trust, all of this is nothing. ** RAYC: This is also comradarie and cohesion within the space. A huge benefit to this has been [[Slack]]. We succumbed to drama going back and forth across discuss@. The nimbus of negativity on the mailing list drowned out all positive things and pushed away people. With Slack, people are now discussing the space in a much more positive manner. If someone comes up, more people are able to tune in and work towards problem solving. We're implementing some patterns that act as a catch-all for negative dynamics. It has been successful, and we're discussing the further evolution of the pattersn. The fact that this proposal was proposed and resulted in such rich dialog is really exceptional and awesome. More people are coming together to solve this. ** Patrick: I'd like to propose that we've come to a convergance point and we can discuss this outside the meeting. Like, right after the meeting.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Noisebridge are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see
Noisebridge:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Request account
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Dig in!
Noisebridge
- Status: MOVED
- Donate
- ABOUT
- Accessibility
- Vision
- Blog
Manual
MANUAL
Visitors
Participation
Community Standards
Channels
Operations
Events
EVENTS
Guilds
GUILDS
- Meta
- Electronics
- Fabrication
- Games
- Music
- Library
- Neuro
- Philosophy
- Funding
- Art
- Crypto
- Documentation/Wiki
Wiki
Recent Changes
Random Page
Help
Categories
(Edit)
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information