martinbogo at gmail.com
Fri May 4 16:05:40 PDT 2012
Yep, and that's pretty much the ATX Hackerspace model.. and we're at
100+ members and up to tons of productive and fun stuff, so
something's Going Right(tm).
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Rorex <drorex at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't say AMT is a private club, to my knowledge up to this point
> nobody who wanted to visit has ever been turned away, and nobody who wanted
> to become a member has ever been rejected. However the policy is such that
> non-members are only allowed inside when members are around, and the only
> way to get a key is to become a member. Also we specifically state that all
> of our events are open to the public and non members are welcome. Our
> mission statement is specifically to focus on hacking/making/building/
> arting, and not consensus/anarchy/extreme inclusion/politics/whatever.
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>> The circumstance at 83c was similar to 2169: a door
>> that is locked and people inside who pretty much let
>> in anyone who knocked.
>> As I understand things, The discussions people had
>> in the planning phase included an acknowledgement of a
>> publicly open place and its foreseeable problems.
>> Note that AMTD is pretty much a private club, and
>> deliberately so to test a model different from
>> On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Bogomolni wrote:
>> > Jim,
>> > Originally, that was _not_ the case. There was a door, and to get in
>> > you needed a key for that door. The key was given to you _after_ you
>> > had petitioned for membership in The Book, and consensus was achieved
>> > for your induction.
>> > You could, of course, let someone in if you had a key... and if you
>> > knocked on the door, if someone let you into the shop, you were
>> > responsible for having let them in. There was no "open door"
>> > policy.. the lock was locked.
>> > We have a very permeable "door" at the moment, and there are
>> > non-keyholders inside the space who will let other non-keyholders in.
>> > Yes, this was -possible- at the old 83c space, but it generally
>> > wasn't an issue since it was a very small space and a fairly tight
>> > community.
>> > -M
>> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My understanding is that the original concept
>> > > of Noisebridge was to be open to the public.
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss