[Noisebridge-discuss] The door situation is not working.
danny at spesh.com
Sun Apr 7 06:34:21 UTC 2013
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:45:03PM -0700, Jake wrote:
> 1. I did not disable the "DOOR" button and i can prove it, because
> I have been out of the state of california since March 21st, and I
> am still not back.
Yeah, I think that the DOOR button is actually broken or *something*,
and that's what's annoying people right now.
Jake you know the door system better than anyone at this point -- is
there something that could be (sporadically or not) preventing the DOOR
button from working? There seems to be a bunch of things like timers
hanging off the door system downstairs. Could they be causing problems?
Is there anyway we can simplify what we already have without causing
problems to your future plans?
> 2. I asked at a meeting AND I asked on the mailing list, twice, and
> none of those times did anyone object. In fact many people wanted
> it done sooner.
Asked what? I know I'm probably being stupid, but after all these months
I'm sure not entirely sure what the plan is. I *think* it's this:
1) Door code to get in. Door code available to... who? Not sure. People
who mail doorcodes at noisebridge.net (not a real email address)? People
who come to Meeting? Probably the latter.
2) Buzzer works to let people in, but you have to either go and press
the DOOR button or... type a code? Typing a code means that you've
agreed to greet people?
3) Keys still work. DOOR button will still work.
Does that sound right? Are there extra stages in the future?
Incidentally, I asked Jake if I could give door codes to everyone who is
subscribing to Pay Noisebridge. He said yes -- I think it's a good idea.
Do other people think that's a good idea?
> 3. The situation is working if it is requiring more human
> involvement in people getting in the door. If people don't get in,
> it's because they don't have a code or a key, and there is nobody in
> the space willing to let them in.
Yeah, but the problem is that lots of people like coming to visit us.
Almost none of them are bad people. The bad people will (and have)
worked out ways of getting keys or codes, or whatever.
The accepted cultural fix for this is to encourage people to greet and
check out people. But I agree that locking new people out is not a great
side-effect of trying to encourage this.
> 4. You can get a mobile app for your android or use the web app to
> open the door, just like you always could, so you don't have to
> enter your code over and over again, or get up to press the door
> 5. There is a switch on the intercom to turn off the doorbell, if it
> is annoying you and you don't feel like answering the door. Please
> turn it back on when you leave.
I don't think anyone understands all of those switches. I don't.
> 6. I will be adding an automatic mute for the doorbell, which turns
> on a blinking light over the door and reduces the volume of the
> doorbell until someone buzzes the door or a few minutes pass. Or
> you could do it.
Why is this a good idea? This just seems to be stopping people who buzz
from coming in, based on how grumpy at inconveniences people are inside.
We should maximise the convienience for new people *and* for people
inside. Punishing either of these people to handle bad people seems to
be the wrong incentive system.
> 7. If people don't get buzzed in because there is nobody there with
> a code who can buzz them in, or is willing to go downstairs and let
> them in, then they won't get in. They can come back another time
> when someone is at the space who will be able to give them a proper
> introduction. Or perhaps they don't need to get in because they
> just want to use Noisebridge as a place to sleep, habitate, or steal
> from. This actually happens.
I'm pretty sure that a large number of what problems we have come from
regular or second-time visitors, not newcomers.
> 8. The fact that you reintroduce the idea of putting a lock on the
> upstairs door shows that you have not been reading the discuss list,
> and that you don't realize the extreme infeasability of such an
> idea. In short, if someone is in the building they are already our
> (Noisebridge's) responsibility.
I follow the mailing list, and I still don't really understand this
either. What are the scenarios where someone gets buzzed in, but we
don't let them in through the door, thus causing them to wander the
building, terrifying the residents? Under what situations would this not
already happen, but would be fixed by any of the variants of the system
I know you talk a lot about your system, Jake, but I *really* don't
understand it. Everytime you explain it to me, I just have more
questions. And I know it's annoying for you, but I don't think I'm the
only one, if only because you regularly have to write emails like this
to people who don't get what's going on.
I would absolutely love you to just write out the whole thing, finally
and once and for all, and let everyone critique and improve the plan.
Sorry again for being so obtuse.
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Sai wrote:
> >Jake recently changed the upper door buzzer to disable the 'door'
> >button and mandate entering a door code instead in order to let
> >someone up.
> >(As a side note: he did this with neither consensus nor even notice.
> >Doöcracy is great and all, but I think something like access control
> >that has to be dealt with every few minutes really ought to be a
> >consensus item, and I think he should forfeit the ability to block
> >reverting his change when it does come up for consensus.)
> >The situation right now is simply not working. It is too much of a
> >pain in the ass to either (a) go enter your code, or (b) go all the
> >way down to open the gate. As a result, a small number of people (e.g.
> >me) are having to do all the gate openings, and it's fucking annoying.
> >More to the point, in practice it doesn't accomplish the one thing
> >that we wanted: to make sure that people get greeted when they enter
> >so we can be friendly to newbies and filter sketchiness based on
> >responses to normal questions rather than their appearance. Jake's
> >change just makes people not get buzzed in, or get buzzed in using a
> >remote app.
> >Jake, we tried your idea, and it just really sucks. I'm sorry; I know
> >you had good intentions for it and I am not at all attacking your
> >sincere desire to help — but what you did has made the situation worse
> >even than what we had before.
> >At minimum, I ask that we reinstate the old system: turn the door
> >buzzer button back on with no code required. It sucks but it sucks
> >less than this.
> >I also ask that we move the lock to the top door, so that someone can
> >just get let in *in person* because they're right there.
> >Some member, please add this to the next meeting's
> >discussion-for-consensus list.
> >Sincerely, and with a headache from that fucking buzzer,
> >- Sai
> >P.S. The donation box really needs repair. I'm not sure how to do that.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss