Difference between revisions of "Meeting Notes 2018 04 10"

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Initial dump of the meeting notes)
Line 1: Line 1:
These are the notes from the [https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Category:Meeting_Notes The XXXth Meeting of Noisebridge]. Date: 2018/04/10 Note-taker: [[User:Patrickod]]; Moderators: [[User:Lady Red]].
[[Category:Meeting Notes]]
Date: 2018/04/10 Note-taker: [[User:Patrickod]]; Moderators: [[User:Lady Red]].

Latest revision as of 02:56, 9 August 2018

Date: 2018/04/10 Note-taker: User:Patrickod; Moderators: User:Lady Red.

  • One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary.

Meeting Summary[edit]

  • Consensed authorization of $4k initial payment to S|K to help with fundraising efforts
  • Announcements:
    • NGLAC received a $1k grant from the Awesome Foundation
    • Makerfaire is coming up - talk to Jarrod and Bernice
    • User:augur has made a great video upload processor which auto-shares your video w/ NB branding and information to Patreon and YouTube for fundraising.
  • Finances: Upcoming
  • New members: None
  • New philanthropists: None
  • Consensus Items:
    • Authorization of $4k initial payment to S|K for fundraising planning services
  • Discussion Items:
    • Upcoming whiteboarding / interview prep classes
    • Remote participation and the value of remote members
    • Sharing the word of Noisebridge more widely especially to underrepresented groups within the community.



Noisebridge is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that provides a space for creation, collaboration, and learning about technology and creative projects. Noisebridge provides space, power tools, and infrastructure to help the public learn new skills and create cool things. Noisebridge continues to exist through and depends entirely on membership fees and donations. Our code of conduct is 'Be excellent to each other'."

  • Introduce any experimental or unusual moderation techniques that may be using during the meeting like: direct responses, limited speaking time, orderless stack, &c.
  • Round of introductions (remember, announcements come later):
    • What is your name?
    • What is your preferred pronoun?
    • What do you do ?
    • What do you maintain at Noisebridge?
    • If you are new, how did you hear about Noisebridge?
  • Lady Red - she - latest obsession: power lifting as of ~3 hours ago
  • Victoria - she/they - latest obsession: $195 discount bicycle. They're named Veronica. New tires.
  • Jade - she/they - latest obsession: adding stickers to laptop. much sticker
  • Kevin (Mr. Name) - they/he - latest obsession: codewars.com and Noisebridge.
  • Clarisa - she - latest obsession: mycelium!!!
  • Ozzy - he/they - latest obsession: a pet feeder for bunnies that I'm working on. Looking for collaborators
  • Bernice - she/they - latest obsession: Noisebridge Arcade Live streaming cabinet
  • Justin - he - latest obsession: Kubernetes
  • Skyler - she - latest obsession: learning SOCL
  • Roy - they - latest obsession: slack integrations w/ the space
  • Josh - - planning the world's smallest woodlot?
  • augur - she/they - latest obsession is siouxsie and the banshee's song obsession
  • Kevin - he/they - latest obsession: combination Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) and its companion blockchain gridcoin
  • Patrick - he - latest obsession: house music and trying to make it
  • scotty - he/they - latest obsession: memory, everything from SSD drives to NAND memory and even raw wafers
  • Frank - he/they - newly looking into blockchain
  • Jeremy - he - make contraptions and check out new buildings. latest obsession: adding facial recognition that will just pop out my ipod from behind my monitor.
  • Paddy - -
  • Mark - - does game stuff. latest obsession: finding ways to automate linux processes like USB device enumeration

Short announcements and events[edit]

  • augur - NGLAC got $1k from the Awesome Foundation for being Awesome!!! Congratulations
  • Clarisa - everyone should apply next month for grants!
  • augur - this saturday tinkerfest at the chabot science center. If you're interested talk to augar!
  • Jarrod - makerfaire is May 18th/20th and Noisebridge has been accepted! We're bringing 4 projects: NGLAC (which got the $1k grant from the Awesome Foundation) meeting on Friday's w/ this coming weekend being a big build weekend. There's going to be a need for woodworking and welding skills if you have time to spare! Come to the Friday meetings if you'd like to help. SIMBridge is also headed w/ us, bringing their exhibit from last year. Super popular w/ people waiting ~hour to take a virtual tour of the space. Neurohacker group is bringing the brainduino and measuring people's brainwaves at the show. And finally Lizzie is bringing modular synthesizers for people to be able to play with them. If you want to help contact Jarrod or the various folks. Gamebridge meets on Tuesdays at 8:30 (right now! O:?). lxpk on Slack is point of contact.More information coming this month.
  • Victoria - did a couple of workshops on adding LEDs and blinky things to your bikes last year. This Friday is East Bay bike party, the route has yet to be announced. Arrive7:30 leaving 8. Loads of bikes taking over the streets! Test ride started from West Oakland, likely to start there again on Friday. eastbaybikeparty.wordpress.com
  • Victoria - thinking of starting a new LED workshop session maybe next month, if you're interested hit me up. There's also a #bikeparty channel on Slack which you shouldjoin
  • Bernice - put in an application to bring my own project to Makerfaire. I can potentially merge booths with NB.
  • Jarrod - if you have large equipment I bring a truck down on the Thursday morning so can help w/ that.
  • augur - Making a video uploader, hopefully done tonight. It'll be on Pegasus and it'll process uploads such that it adds an intro, lower third w/ some details, and outro and then be uploaded directly to our Youtube and Patreon account to share with people. If that's interesting to you and you have videos come talk to me.
  • Victoria - also @ the nbsp meeting. One thing we talked about is putting together a big doc about what the non-profit is about. It takes work, so this Saturday @ 2pm I'll be running a workshop on this. Want people to come and tell personal stories. I'll be here to walk people through it. Super helpful for people to show up to this and share stories as they're really useful material to have.
  • Bernice - dunno if people have been chatting w/ Ryan, but he's put together something like this, you should hit him up.
  • Victoria - better to be there on the day instead of just contacting me on slack. It'll happen a few times. We'll have a doc on Saturday when we're done to share for input.
  • Kevin - want to talk about the real estate matters: we're starting negotiations and comparing possible deals in both staying here and moving. Hit Kevin up w/ your questions.

Safe Space[edit]

Note: This section is experimental. We discussed it at Meeting_Notes_2016_06_28. We're going to try it for the next meeting, and see how it goes, and then discuss in the discussion section how it went, and how we'd like to tweak it.

Noisebridge is a safe space. Invite a volunteer to describe what that means.

Some specific points you might prompt the group to touch on, if it doesn't happen naturally:

  • What to do if you feel uncomfortable.
  • Noisebridge strives to be radically inclusive. What does that mean?
  • Noisebridge has an antiharassment policy. What does that mean?
  • Victoria - NB is a safe space, which means that it's a place where people feel comfortable hacking on their things, which means don't be creepy about it, be excellent, don't harass people, and offer unsolicited technical input and advice, mansplain people. Think of it like woodshop, where you shit on the table. If you're about to make a very loud sound you'll probably warn people about your noise about to happen to let people prepare themselves. Same can be said for psychological things, where you might be discussing sensitive topics and thus might want to give people a warning so that they can prep. NB should be a safe space for everyone and everyone should feel safe here. If it's not a safe space for people then we need to talk about it and solve it swifty. There's slack channels for this, #space-guardians amongst others, and there's always NB people here to help with issues.
  • augur - if you're not on slack you can go to pegasus.noisebridge.net/safespace (signs posted about the space) and request help w/ safe space issues either anonymously or provide information to be contacted.


Invite a knowledgable volunteer to describe who can participate at Noisebridge, including:

  • Describe how to get an rfid key for the door system
  • Describe how to get access to slack


  • Invite a knowledgeable volunteer to describe Philantropy, and the application process.
  • Read off any names from the binder for the past month. Any applicants must have their sponsor present to vouch for them.
  • If there are no objections, they're a philanthropist! Their pledge should be handed over to the Secretary posthaste, after which their token will be updated to give them the 24/7 access they've earned(?)
  • Kevin - noisebridge is as open as possible, which currently means we have open hours between 10am and 10pm which allows people with anonymous 30 day access via our RFID tokens to gain entry at the gate. To get a token, get to know people, and we're pretty open about distributing these tokens to people once we know them. First to get in just ring the doorbell and people will let you in if they're here and can do so.
  • Kevin - Beyond that there's a mechanism called Philanthropy, which means that you become capable of keeping the space open 24/7 and gain access at those times. It also means that you're responsible to close up properly at night and otherwise take care of the space as we do. It also means that you're ok with asking people to leave if you're the last such person out the door at night and thus need to shut down the space. We have the one rule: be excellent to each other, and so no matter what whe nyou're in the space you're under the guidance of that rule. As long as you can keep that you'll continue to enjoy participating in the space.
  • Lady Red - how do you get trained on the machines?
  • Kevin - no direct experience w/ this but I understand there's frequent classes for machines announced on slack and ample wiki documentation as to how they can be used and the various specs. Should definitely give it a look.
  • Lady Red - 99% of the machines you don't need to get trained on, just the laser cutter and a certain sewing machine. Please don't hurt yourselves.
  • Lady Red confirms there's no current applications.
  • skipping right along

Membership Binder [edit]

  • Invite a knowledgeable volunteer to describe membership, and the application process.

Being a member of Noisebridge is not like being a member of a gym or your local chess club. Anyone can come to Noisebridge to hack and learn: you don't need to be a member for that. At Noisebridge, membership is something different: it means taking responsibility and committing to help to maintain, improve, and govern Noisebridge. As a member of Noisebridge, you don't just come here to hack and learn, you actively work to improve what you see around you, help to deal with problems, and make this community and space better than it is today.

  • Read off any names from the binder for the past month. Mark down a check or other indicator on every open application to keep track of how many weeks they've been read out.
  • Anyone eligible to join this week should
    • introduce themselves,
    • answer any questions members may have for them, then
    • leave the area in search of gifts (traditionally beer and a lime, or cookies) for the rest of the group.
  • The rest of the meeting should reach consensus on whether they may join.
  • Remember to applaud new members when they return.
  • Patrick - we've describe anon access and philantropy. The other level of participation is membership. Not like a gym, it's a shared labor with only downside. It's like stewardship, really love the space and want to contribute to it's continued existance, solve hard problems of running a community like this. There's no need to become a member, many people make a point of not being members. Ability to participate in the consensus procress. Means that when discussions are bring held about making large, sweeping changes, we use consensus, every is welcome to enter into discussions, only members form the consensus. Members can grant 30-day accesses, philantropists can only renew.. this is currently being discussed. Not a functional status, more of a committment.
  • Roy - Only members can participated in consenus?
  • Patrick - Only members can block, everyone can propose an item, participate in the discussion.
  • Patrick - How to become a member: Someone exclaims, "you're not a member!" and quickly hands you a form. Write a statement of participation in the space. What do you want to do as a member? 2 member sponsors are required. Read aloud for 4 weeks at general meeting. On week 4 there's an active discussion, Q&A, private discussion in absense of member applicant, followed by a consensus decision.
  • Victoria - membership is cool

Financial Report[edit]


  • Invite a knowledgeable volunteer to give a brief primer on consensus process
  • It is important that everyone in attendance understands at least:
    • blocking with verbalized principled objections.
    • why we use consensus over other approaches to decision making.
    • how consensus isn't a legislative process
    • why consensus isn't applicable to some things like conflict resolution, resolution of time sinks, and the like.
  • Kevin - Consensus is the formal process for making big decisions @ noisebridge. it's truly part of the trifecta, excellence, docracy and consensus, that makes noisebridge work. It's often a long process with a lot of back and forth, and from these discussions new outcomes are formed that were not previously thought possible. it requires a lot of active listening and participation. IT happens actively at this meeting, usually before the meeting someone proposes something on the wiki, it's discussed on the wiki for at least 2 weeks, but often longer due to changes and discussion. We take a while to make sure we can state it's the consensus of the organization. Throughout the process people raise concerns and propose solutions. If there's an unreconcilable issue, which people can't resolve, then it forms a block, which is a hard stop on the process as it signals that people would be willing to leave were it to pass. This usually invokes a strong back and forth or the death of the proposal in lieu of something else. Blocks must be respected, they're a strong component of the process but must be used very rarely and sparingly.
  • Crow - unsure if the consensus being members only is a new paradigm or something that's existed.
  • Kevin - clarification: everyone is able to participate but only members are able to block consensus.
  • Crow - question: is noisebridge made up of more than just members?
  • Victoria - the Capital C Consensus process happens at the formal tuesday meeting, but the more common lower-case c consensus happens all the time in the community. where people discuss things actively. The former is a documented and long process, and it makes not necessarily the best decision but the one that we can all live by. Capital M Members can capital B Block in Capital C Consensus capslock, but it's indicitative of a fracture within the community, and usually is viewed as a strong signal of underlying issue that needs to be addressed. It's the responsibility of the community to try and resolve the block and continue everyone's involvement. Blocking comes at the cost of losing people which is not the intended result. Members can block on someone who's not a member, that's happened historically and is valid.
  • Scotty - wanted to address the language of blocking. Blocking meaning that you'd leave the community, there's been a shift how we used that wording, previously it was a rhetorical question, but recently sounds more transactional. Want to steer away from stating that it means that if you block then you'll just leave, as if this is the expected result.
  • Victoria - Less procedural, more rhetorical.
  • Scotty - concerned that it's become a standard outcome for a block to mean that someone just must leave noisebridge
  • lady red - understand that consensus is an important discussion, worth having but it's 9pm. want to get to the consensus items before the longer meeting.

Proposals from last week [edit]

(Add any items which are consensed upon or someone has raised a principle objection for to the Consensus Items History page.)

  • Lady Red - initial payment for professional fundraiser. NB authorizes $4k to S|K fundraising group who have worked with groups like us before. They can run the fundraising operation if we want, they want $4k to make a plan including grants, in-person time w/ Joseph to come understand us, identify internal champions, internal comms plan to target internal donors (tiered out), review our actual financials back a few years, prioritize and target grants of at least $1MM. From there on out there'll be additional money required such as for reporting requirements for grants. They expect there to be a significant amount of low-strings money that we can target.
  • Kevin - have we ourselves identified the internal champions that are going to work w/ Joseph?
  • Lady Red - I will as I've started this process, and John Shutt has agreed to meet w/ them to talk finances.
  • Victoria - Also want to be in on this, also want to help champion. Motivation is to have them build a plan which we don't have at the moment, so helpful to have guide work. Especially when we're not all familiar with the industry. Still useful for us to have a document from somenoe in the industry to explain how it relates to us. No further commitment over the $4k.
  • Alex - got in touch with fundraiser/grant writer friend. would it be helpful to have them present during the consulation? they're low on time
  • Lady Red - understand that the output will be document which we can share.
  • Alex - but we're going to need a team right?
  • Lady - either to write grants or pay them to do it yeah. One of their other clients said that their grantwriter had been poached, so they paid them anyway as they were good. they're happy.
  • Jarrod - let's do it.
  • Kevin - lots of my concerns have been addressed, especially contacting former clients. RE competitors it came in via a friend so think we're also in a good spot. Totally in support!
  • Kevin - there's a wiki for this, so that it's shareable widely.
  • Alex - friend is currently at capacity but they can potentially help out w/ some guidance as opposed to actually writing grants.

    • Passed ** - All hail consenso

Proposals for next week [edit]

(Add any new items for consensus to the Current Consensus Items page.)


Longer discussion items belong here. This is the last part of the meeting so that people can break off and continue their discussion afterwards.


   * Kevin - members abroad. The levels of participation and pros-cons thereof
   * Frank - announcement: DHS' new program for media influencers surveillance program.
   * Roy - membership continuation
   * Bernice - whiteboarding/interviewing prep class/workshop (DISCUSSED)**
   * Bernice - bringing on from last week discussion on how to best tell world that Noisebridge is inclusive

Discussion Items[edit]

Interview/whiteboarding prep classes[edit]

  • Bernice - I'll put something in the wiki and make sure that it doesn't clash with people. Haven't done this yet so undecided on date. Hoping it'll be useful to some people. Will announce it when ready.
  • Lady Red - happy to be a mock interviewer as I do this professionally.

Membership abroad[edit]

  • Kevin - I believe that noisebridge today is an international org and that I hope it becomes intergalactic in the future. One observation is that Scotty is joining from China. He participates while traveling internationally, and another excellent example of this would be Mitch who was one of the co-founders who has spent the last ~12 years traveling the world and spreading the good word of the hackerspace. And these are excellent and valuable contributions and I feel that they should be recognized as a strong benefit of involving remote members. There's also a certain tension here which has happened in the past, where decisions being made about the running of the physical space mostly affect people here. One example of this was the historical discussion about access control and open hours. There was a strong contingent of distant members who resisted the idea which brought a long-hard discussion in the space. The participation of remote falks was hard due to the conversations happening in the space. It was felt that people's presence was required to help implement their wishes. There's a back/forth on when it's appropriate for members abroad to stand aside and defer to people actually physically present, and other conversations where it's about the philosophy of noisebridge or other such discussions where it's appropriate for their full participation. Interested in discussing the line that separates these.
  • Jarrod - I think that your description of the problem covers most of the discussion already, except to add that it's important to accept and listen to the advice of people who are abroad while also understanding that local perspective forms what noisebridge is at any one time.
  • Scotty - want to speak to the experience of being remote a lot of the time. have been coming around a long time, have gone through periods of spending a lot of time at the space when I'm there, though I'm more and more abroad recently. Used to be 50% time in SF. It's around 25% now. When I'm there I'm at the space almost every day and it's a very important places to me. It's one of the biggest reasons I visit the city. That being said, while I'm not physically there I work hard to try and keep up to date on what's going on w/ the community, and participate where I can. Mostly for me that comes is the form of reading all of the slack channels I'm in every day, so that I can contribute to discussions where helpful, and also to have context for when I'm actually in the space to make sure I'm on the same page still culturally with the proper context. But, there's also a bunch of challenges, namely that Slack is separate from the physical space and so things get dropped, and also the idea of knowing when to contribute and knowing when to stand back. I try and abstain from tactical issues where people are in the space and physically doing the wok like safe-space issues. When I do chime in it's about when I have context that might be helpful, or when it's a larger principle-based discussion for the broader community. I think it's important for people who aren't there for whatever reason to give benefit of the doubt and support to those who are there. The other thing I'm feeling is that the best part of NB is physically being there, and so not being there makes you lose a bunch of the benefit. Becoming more aware of it recently, mostly over the last year. Much harder to communicate, especially when there's tough conversations to be had which are made only harder. Very acutely aware of that, having had a bunch in the last year. The other remote people like Mitch ~mumble~ - Mitch has been helping with more behind the scene stuff recently. Curious to hear other people's pers

pectives. Putting it out there some people have put the question out recently whether people who haven't been in the space should participate in consensus. Think that's a discussion that we should have. Pros/cons to both, it affects me a done. Depending on the answer it might significantly change my participation in the space.

  • Victoria - want to share as semi-remote person. Much like Scotty I got involved heavily ~2/3 years ago, was very active in the space. As time went on people change, got more busy with other things and got burned out by noisebridge and had to step away. Important part about membership is that when I stepped away I felt that my input on certain things in the space should not carry as much weight as they could have potentially. It's possible for someone to shit all over the process, and part of membership is the responsibility of knowing when that's the case. Not to accuse people recently of it, just forming that thought. I think it's cool to have remote membership and to keep people all over the planet, but comes with the collective responsibility on everyone else. It's a relatively new thing in the last 2/3 years that is exciting direction for the space, definitely going to be a better noisebridge on the other side
  • Jarrod - where is the discussion going? what's the problem we're discussing?
  • Kevin - I raised this without subtext, just as open question. Nobody has apparently raised the anti-remote-member flag so that's cool. Some feedback on Scotty's question. I think the current model is working in asking people remotely to judge their own level of participation. I think it'll continue to work as long as we keep talking about it and keep common understanding. I think also that if someone in the space raises the concern that you're abroad and it's a meatspace issue that you might step back, the empathy exists there to have that discussion.
  • Scotty - Want to encourage everyone to raise their points, worried we're astroturfing the discussion.
  • Roy - I've a concern, I think remote participation is valuable, but worry that Slack has a more negative view of the space than reality. Particularly things happen organically and things will be running fine, where things only go on Slack when there's a problem. The absence of a signal in #space-guardians is not a bad thing, but no positive feedback there. In #general there's the advice to take personal disagreements off slack, but how do people do that when they're remote? Need more positive communication channels for remote members.
  • Kevin - completely agree, share that opinion that Slack as sole information source is not 100% view of the space
  • Scotty - thumbs up. Try to counter that in my thinking. It's not perfect. It's challenging. One of the pros/cons and responsibilities that I was thinking about. It's easy to only see the hard stuff on Slack and not the awesome stuff.
  • Lady Red - bored as this seems to be an echo chamber. Want to bite the actual bullet of the discussion?
  • Scotty - I have a lot of skin in the game. What's the thinking about remote participation in meetings? I've been here for last 2 due to topics. It's not something we've done a bunch before, and I've viewed it as a special occasion, but what do others think? Is it something that we want to do more of? Want to happen more?
  • augur - I think it's cool and we should do more like it more often.
  • jeremy - if we're going to celebrate remote members then yes. There's members who have been absent longer than scotty, and if there's people that want to participate but can't make it then it helps you be involved, and especially if that's what we're asking of people then why wouldn't we do it?
  • jarrod - false positive
  • lady red - think it's pretty annoying to have a computer here. Most of the meeting is about what's happening physically in the coming two weeks. We could set it up that you'd be at a meeting every week but is the content relevant?
  • scotty - yes it would still be relevant, insofar as I might pick and choose depending on what topics are being discussed. There's a bunch of heavy topics like the future of noisebridge which I want to participate in especially, things like media and media coverage, and also with specific issues like what's going on right now which I'd like to participate in.
  • Mark - are you as a member feeling empowered to come in remotely and participate in consensus should you feel the need? Do you feel able to attend or have a proxy? If you have an issue do others also have it?
  • scotty - feeling the issue accutely at the moment. There's a bunch of people making this happen currently, but not usually. In the past there was opposition, so trying to sense the discussion. There's been questions about recordings, (I'm not recording) and the like when this has come up.
  • Mark - if you don't feel able to do it all the time then there's got to be more members out there feeling even more disconnected. Hard to codify rules about required membership and physical participation for consensus.
  • scotty - currently to participate as a member who's not present, you can participate in the slack discussions and via the 1-1 mediums, but to block you have to have someone physically come to the meeting and proxy your block. Recently there's some push to have things discussed at the meeting which feels exclusionary to those outside the meeting
  • kevin - there was an effort in the past to set up more infrastructure to help this happen. right now it's a specific thing for Scotty ,but feel strongly about the possibility for others to take part withuot causing too much pain for those physically here.
  • Scotty - another aspect is that someone approached me during the last meeting on Slack who wanted to join as they couldn't physically participate. Should we make this a pattern for those who can't make it
  • augur - sounds great for accessibility reasons
  • victoria - would also be great to have it accessible even to listen in on the meeting. Would be nice to have the option to be able to take part without the commute. I'd help that happen and would pitch in effort to help it happen. My other organizing group in the east bay is experimenting with remote attendance of meetings with technical problems being the usual downside but it's really possible. Would love to see it happen more
  • Lady Red - it's doocratic, if people feel the urge to make this a thing then they should feel empowered to do it. I think it's pretty cool. I think there's a question about forcing people into being filmed, but think it's a viable route forward.
  • Alex - since the main infrastructure is slack, could we not just use that?
  • augur - Zach is not on slack?
  • Alex - for those not on slack would hangouts work?
  • scotty - yep it'd work and there'd be a link that we could share
  • Patrick - hangouts might work well due to simultaneous broadcast / participation options with up to 10 people in the participating group.
  • augur - I think we've moved to a place where this is more acceptable, where we now have big events like 5mof which are streamed frequently, it's happening in the space regularly, and we have norms around it, so I think it's totally reasonable that we can borrow them for the meeting.
  • Roy - think we have a fairly robust privacy policy which requires consent about recordings of any form, it's posted around the space
  • Jade - I think it should be understood that if someone wants to not be streamed they can be out of view of the camera, and if they want to be speak, they can be request to be muted for streaming outbound, but otherwise it's cool. I'd love to be at home and be able to listen in.
  • Jarrod - as this remote participation discussion has progressed, I've become less excited about the idea, because it reminds me about the old way of discussing changes to the space where remote and loud hands often hampered the discussion. For example the kitchen issue was opposed by some remote people. Don't know if I'm ready to have to weigh the value of all remote participants in meetings. I worry we'll have to accommodate a lot of bikeshedding.
  • Victoria - want to get out of this discussion the question of technical hangups in the decision process, like decisions over the platform, but want to step back and view the outer question of how important do we weigh the progress of noisebridge against the technical impedements to making that, is it worth it to noisebridge that we sacrifice some of our progress and ability to move things forward to work out remote issues. I think that's separate to the swooping-in-from-Berlin anti-pattern that Jarrod has described. People who have no context but big opinions on $THING. Want to separate the issues. Example of technical side is the revocation of consensus after the fact due to technical limitations in not being able to make active participation happened
  • Scotty - Agree with Jarod on concerns about people participating in NB discussions, who don't really participate in NB otherwise. This happens in the physical space too. Easier to recognize/deal with in meat space. Opening remote participation widely may lead to more of that. I don't know what the solution to that is. Responsibility of remote people to know when to step back. Works well when people are being conscious of that. Either at the meeting, or not at the meeting. If at the meeting, you can fully participate. Similar to people in the sewing area shouting random thoughts over the flashen-tashen. Understand sensitivities of people wanting to not be on camera. We shouldn't record the meetings, put in place a culteral expectation. I would be willing to comprimise by identifiying folks speaking off camera, it's harded. Muting NB mic while speaking will make remote participation harder. Let's cross that bridge when we get there.
  • Patrick - To address on of Jarod's concerns, the process can break down. There is always a chance of regression to NB2012-13. Worry less about a new technical thing, causing a new social problem. Focus on general communal health. I don't think the forum is thing that prevents that from happening (e.g. slack, meat space, mailing list, we chat).
  • augur - regarding Jarrod's concern, if we build norms then we can deal with these issues. especially if we try and understand why someone is compelled to shout out when they're not participating actively, and see if there's some other more constructive way to address whatever they're feeling.
  • Jermops - what posesses people to post nudes on the wiki? One thing that might alleviate that armchair noisebridging is to need an invite from someone who is at the meeting, such that completely random driveby comments are harder to make. Ideally there'd be ample time for a code to be distributed before meetings to tie participation to some physical component.
  • Victoria - think discussing new norms is good. We should all feel empowered to call out when someone's opinion is unhelpful due to lack of context from physical participation. We should also be ready to accept that criticism when it eventually is directed at us. We should all hold ourselves to that standard. It's happened before and we should hold ourselves to better account to prevent it happening again. There's a good point to having some amount of physical component, but there's no physical constraint at the moment bar the gate. I think they're roughly the same problem space. We have the emotional tools to deal with these issues. We're currently hung up on the physical constraints of doing it. We're talking about how we scale it beyond the 2/3 people who might do this. I think we're going to have this discussion again next week. I'll bring a pledge for us
  • augur - seems like an extension of ask to leave stuff.
  • boot - have been here 2 times but have hella opinions. Scotty has a lot of opinions on community things but I might have more skin in the game over something happening in the kitchen. tl;dr there used to be a kitchen, there is no kitchen any longer. Infer what you will.
  • Ozzie - there's tools that we can use to moderate who gets to say what if they're remote. If you're running a YT stream there's a chat with someone could moderate and reda into the meeting. Could also have a StackOverflow points system to social proof their comments.
  • jarrod - I didn't even realize I was on the stack??!? Why am I here??


  • Bernice - think that the demographics of NB are resultant of the content that we share and the mediums through which we share it. Have heard many people have a negative association w/ Meetup due to it being programmer centric. Maybe let's print flyers? There's also Sunday Streets on Valencia where we could put out a table to share the word about noisebridge.
  • Jarrod - I think that would be really great.
  • Lady Red - I would really enjoy flyering, I'd happily cycle around and post them up.
  • Frank - we should have a readout on the street for walkers by
  • Patrick - we had a whiteboard frame a while ago which was great.
  • augur - have more stuff that centers around marginalized voices, encourage events run by those in marginalized communities.
  • Bernice - all great ideas, would be great to share more widely to let noisebridge know it's not just for people like us
  • Jarrod - has anyone done Sunday Streets before?
  • Bernice - did something similar in college, I'll look up how to register.
  • Jarrod - we should just put a table (general loud cheer for do-ocracy)
  • Josh - closer to 24th street it gets thinner.
  • Jarrod - we could make a really great tent to catch attention.

End of Meeting[edit]

  1. Return the membership binder to its rightful location.
  2. Discuss any items for which there was not time during the meeting.
  3. Enjoy the company of your fellow hacker, robot, or robothacker.

Note taker posts the notes[edit]

  1. Clean and tidy the meeting notes including removing all these really verbose instructions.
  2. Fill out the short summary at the top listing just announcements, consensus items, discussion topics, and names of new members and philanthropists.
  3. Copy paste the notes to the next meeting page. (They will become Last meeting at midnight.)
  4. Email the meeting summary to Noisebridge Discuss and Noisebridge Announce lists.
  5. CC on the email treasurer@noisebridge.net and secretary@noisebridge.net if there are new members and philanthropists.
  6. Edit the Current Consensus Items if anything is proposed for consensus next week.
  7. Edit the Consensus Items History if anything was reached consensus or failed to reach consensus this week.

Fun things to do after[edit]

  • Reprise of the Hackernationale. [This is anarchy - we do what the wiki says!]
  • PGP Key Signing could happen now (if it doesn't happen before any given Meeting). Ask others around the space or check the list to see who wants in on the action.