Meeting Notes 2023 03 14
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
fill this in!
== discussion Item 6 === I (farley) would like to discuss that we do not encourage anonimous painting of the walls. The community cant consens with an anonymous party. Paint the walls, spraypaint is fine, but dont do it anonymously. Sign your name, tell people, take responsibility. specifically @moof and music room related folks stop encouraging anonymous tags. I can update the wiki if the community is agreeable. jvol: we dont have time to debate what art is. i propose a solution to farley's objection. let's put a spot on discord or wherever, some notes around that say people should put up notes that say "hey this is my thing". encourage ppl to get involved. jlb: the ability to anonymously do things at the space is one of the core freedoms of the space I think. I think it is unexcellent to force ppl to put their names on something they did. Farley: its about taking ownership of what you do at NB. it is unexcellent to do otherwise. TJ: I do agree with getting consent by letting ppl know what you are doing. More importantly, what are we going to do next time something like this happens? (We're just establishing cultural norms rn) JD: We are a community, all of us in this room. We work on consensus. That means an individual can not unilaterally override a bunc of people in the room by doing something they think is uncool. Max: clarifying q: are you asking to specify that we shouldn't be tagging anywhere? or just anywhere except a designated space like the music room? Farley: All I am asking for is for ppl to own up to what they do. I don't care about the spray paint, I care about people taking responsibility for things. Jams: I will reiterate on the ownership point. Ppl should speak up when asked about whether they did something. Farley: you are right, we should not discourage art of any kind and we should be careful how we word it to ppl. john: I don't really showcase much I make here, but you are welcome to say to me "hey john that particular piece is unexcellent!" or whatever JD: if you do something anonymously, expect it to be painted over. If you dont take ownership over something, don't expect it to last long. TJ: the tag doesn't give us any clue on how to contact the person. I assume thats what is meant by "anonymously" And, sure, we can do-ocratically undo excellent things, but that is totally how we burn out ppl who want to actually take care of the space. They are so busy taking care of others' messes they have no time to do what they actually want to do. Max: I feel like the problem is we're debating intention over the art. This isn't graffiti, this is *art* Farley: Benefits of doing something anonymously, not the validity of the art. I have re-clarified this a bunch of times already here. sam: I think we have wonderful art on front door. But there is name for reaching out and contacting anonymously. Farley: I'm talking about jams: We do a lot of stuff anonymously. We clean toilets anonymously, do stuff anonymously. Do-ocratically, you want to talk to person Farley: Should not change the space anonymously. JLB: I don't think painting the walls qualifies as "changing the space". jvol: It looks to me that we have two really different views on what is excellent in terms of what is Excellent. Doesn't look like we could get to an agreement. Make signs encouraging people to take ownership of their work could go some way to alleviating tension. Corey: All I want to say is when making changes, our measure isn't excellent. Best way to handle this, is to challenge people to know if their contribution is excellent. Y2K is excellent, unexcellent is the poster with eyes out. Har to argue that we are an art space when all of our walls are blank. Let's encourage art, but always challenge its excellence. JD: What we are bumping up against is a difference between consensus and do-ocracy. Do-ocracy means no consensus. When dealing with notion of anonymity, regardless of how rest of community, we are flying in the face of consensus. TJ: I agree with what JD says. We may be at an impasse. Perhaps we can discuss maybe the idea of asking ppl to create some sort of nym to be contacted via so it can remain anonymous? We could argue about this all night. But perhaps that could be some kind of compromise. Chris: I did the NB + anarchy sign in the hackitorium. We were covering up the y2k. ppl: ty for being excellent and taking ownership of it and explaining it. jvol: Small-c consensus of whoever is there. It seems to work out. Farley: little-c without involving the rest of the community is unexcellent though. Jams: I think its the people you are effecting. Sometimes it is the whole community. TJ: Because we have talked about this a lot, lets stick with the do-ocracy + small-c for now but encourage reach-outs/ some way to contact you about yourstuff you have done Mark: The best we can do is encourage people to people to reach out with a way to contact them. Some people will not, out of anxiety or fear of repurcussions. People want to remain off of it. Those people cannot be helped, it is unexcellent. We want to assume people are excellent, but cannot coerce people. Call people on the act. Direct response : Paint police? Side note: we should have two note-takers. Join in on the notepad and take notes Conversation can't happen without notes Mark: you're asking on redefining what is excellent and what isn't Farley: Yes Mark: Is it to write it out in clear terms Farley: I'll write it in the wiki and on discussion items Mark: Does anyone disagree, that : It is Excellent to put alongside art with a point of contact, it is Unexcellent to not take responsibility for art that you have done. We have now publicly stated that, put it in writing JLB: I object. I don't think it is unexcellent to make awesome change and not sign it. Mark: Then we need to keep working on it jams: It's about having accountability for projects that you do. More broadly applicable than one thing. Mark: How can we have accountability? jams: Write you name on piece, owning it in a meeting Chris: What about anonymous sign in sheets? You go in there and sign what you did on the wall Mark : We need to reach a better agreement jams : I'll help with wording Farley : It's not about wording, it's about accountability. Just own up to it if you did it. Don't lie about it. JLB: Lying is unexcellent, that's it. Farley: No tracking or anything. Don't make changes to the space and say you didn't do it. JLB: When I came to the space, what I was told was about do-ocracy and consensus. Do-ocracy was "if you want to spray paint walls purple, do it" . Table saw though requires consensus. Spray paint *is* do-ocracy. No signing. No telling anyone Mark: Wording about accountability. Farley: Quibble with wording about only being honest when asked. I'm asking for opinions and stating my own. If you think fucking with the space anonymou TJ: Yes in that kind of space, yes there are people who could do good things anonymously, but a much higher risk of people getting away with doing bad things. JLB: Freedom is risky. TJ: I'm just saying there are concerns about potential ways for people to make disagreeable changes to the space. Jams: People have said things implying malicious intent Farley: How coudl the community consent with anonymity. JD : This is a clashing thing jams: True Excellence is do-ocracy first with consensus later Moving stuff downstairs, made a big dust cloud. Do-ocratically did it, but affected a lot of people negatively. Not excellent to lie. jvol: do-ocracy. consensus. it'll have to ebb and flow a bit. corey: we were talking earlier about the idea of the ebb and flow. I think we can agree that if someone leaves a defacement and then someone paints over it, that THAT is not consensus. If someone then tags over it again, that is beyond the pale of "just creating art". jvol: quesiton: if we have a table-moving war, is that different from doing that but with tagging? corey: if that kind of behavior is happening, then someone should ask for consensus. mark: i believe farley was trying to do that here tonight. Farley: I am not asking for consensus, but just wanted to have a discussion.
Please note that all contributions to Noisebridge are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see
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:
(opens in new window)
Retrieved from "
Not logged in
- Status: MOVED
What links here