[Noisebridge-discuss] A modest proposal.

Kelly hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 13:10:16 PST 2012


I'm also against members only hours, but partly because I think the
keycodes idea will work. It hopefully made it into the notes of this
week's meeting so I don't have to explain it all again on discuss.

I'll be moving forward on that idea. We had hoped to start at the
social engineering meeting tonight which I'm not sure I can make it
to, but I will try, and if not tonight this weekend.

-Kelly

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 13:06, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would categorically block any proposal to make noisebridge members
> only after hours. I (like many people) would not be here without the
> openness to awesome people who are not paying money.  I would not have
> finished any of my hardware interface projects without being able to
> hack all night.  No I am not bad at time management.  I like digging in
> deep for a long time, you know, hacking?  I eventually became a member
> so I could block ideas like this that i thought were bad for NB.
>
> I don't have a problem with the door being more difficult to open after
> certain hours.
>
> We need to hack our own system, not give up on it.  I think I threw up
> in my mouth a little when Matt wrote "the risk here far outweighs the
> reward...You can have a place to solder at 4 am.  Or you can have a
> place that is universally accepting and open to the public.  You cannot
> have both without tempting fate...Stop tempting fate for no good reason."
>
> The risk of what?  All night hacker dens being overcome by hordes of
> tweaking oogles?  AS FUCKING IF, PEOPLE.  Is this the revenge of the
> nerds or not?  Is this a hackerspace or not?  Do we jettison our ideals
> and run away because people got into our system that we didn't like?  Or
> do we come up with a better authentication protocol?
>
> I still maintain the most likely epic bad thing to happen to noisebridge
> is the fire marshal finding us.  We can't solve that problem with
> liability insurance.
>
> R.
>
> On 2/9/2012 12:25 PM, Danny O'Brien wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Will Sargent <will.sargent at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Like many proposals currently being kicked around, this is perfectly
>>>> reasonable one, which has been somewhat discussed to death in previous
>>>> rounds. A lot of NB members really like it being open late, and it's one of
>>>> the things that a lot of people want to keep that there's somewhere in San
>>>> Francisco where you can hold a soldering class at 4AM.
>>>>
>>>> It, and the related one of it being members-only after hours gets
>>>> discussed a lot in meeting, carefully considered, and then rejected.
>>>>
>>>> I know, we is crazy. But we're very picky in what craziness we want.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't remember anyone rejecting or moving to block it, and I don't see
>>> anything in the notes about it.  There was a "well, the community wouldn't
>>> go for it" -- but that's a self fulfilling prophecy in that it shuts down
>>> discussion of "unacceptable" topics.  Case in point -- no-one thought we
>>> could get consensus on banning Patrick at the time, but I saw over 30 people
>>> in the room that night and everyone was on-board -- philosophically
>>> disgusted, maybe, but on-board.
>>
>> I wasn't actually referring specifically to last night, but this as an
>> ongoing proposal that gets brought up from time to time, and has done
>> since time immemorial.
>>
>> The last time that really stuck in my mind for obvious reasons, was
>> when *I* proposed it, at least in its "members after hours" version.
>> After circuiting it around then, my conclusion then was that it wasn't
>> likely to pass consensus.
>>
>> The Patrick case felt very different -- a lot of people had concerns
>> that would have led to them blocking, and we spent a long time
>> addressing those concerns so that they felt better. My belief is that
>> people would object to a proposal to close NB after hours on
>> principle. I might be wrong though, and you can easily proposal this
>> for discussion next week. It would at least, as you say, bring the
>> objections out to the fore.
>>
>> I'll say here that I wouldn't block, but I'd want a lot more detail
>> about how to do this. I don't think there's anything basic about
>> Noisebridge that requires it to be open 24/7. I think it would be
>> logistically hard to achieve (previous objections: how and who closes
>> the space? If it's members after hours, how do we enforce or even know
>> that), but sorting out those logistics could conceivably be better for
>> the community as a whole. I'd want to spend a lot of time listening to
>> people who work at Noisebridge after hours, who are generally poorly
>> represented in our system.
>>
>> I might even suggest that if this goes up to consensus, we should have
>> at least one meeting (maybe not *the* meeting) at 1AM in the space.
>> For all people have an image of NB-at-night as being a den of
>> iniquity, it has its own constituency, and they should organize.
>>
>> d.
>>
>>>
>>> Noisebridge may be crazy, but it does act in the furtherance of having a
>>> good time.
>>>
>>> Will.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list