[Noisebridge-discuss] noisebridge visitor / noob policy progress
orenbeck at gmail.com
Wed Dec 25 07:25:22 UTC 2013
Radical inclusion or radical exclusion are equally epic fails. Either
extreme biases towards one or the other set of dooms. Even if there's some
middle ground set for initial walk-ins..the space STILL fails absent a
robust culture of cherishing excellence while banishing badness.
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Johny Radio wrote:
> On 12/23/2013 3:06:54 PM, "Jake" <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>> I don't think we need to automatically keep people out, except with the
>>> gate which has the potential of working pretty well if it is physically
>>> maintained more than it is.
>> The gate does not keep anyone out, whether it's working or not. They just
>> get buzzed in, or come in when somebody else leaves. Do you disagree?
> yes i disagree. People can only buzz others in if they have a code. Since
> they're using their code, they're making a conscious decision at some level
> to let a person in, and they are in some small sense responsible for that
> As for people coming in on the heels of others, yes it happens but I don't
> see a good solution for it at this time until the culture changes so that
> there is more engagement between people who are, for example, coming
> through the door together. When I let someone come through the door with
> me I usually try to talk to them a little bit and learn something about
> them. So far I have not had to ask any of those people not to come in with
> The important thing to keep in mind is that there is so much low hanging
> fruit in terms of gate repair. Right now the gate doesn't even latch
> unless you push it closed. It needs oil in the latch, and adjustment or
> repair of the door-closer mechanism above.
> I believe we can and should err on the side of letting people in rather
>>> than keeping them out. I think the change we need to make is in discussing
>>> the "right" to be at noisebridge after you have gotten in. I want to make
>>> noisebridge a welcoming place for newcomers, but once a person has been
>>> introduced to the space and given the opportunity to participate in a good
>>> way, including becoming an associate member if they want, they will
>>> understand that coming to noisebridge is not a god-given right regardless
>>> of your behavior. After people have found the space and learned about it,
>>> if they choose to go against our community standards in any way, general or
>>> specific, the community has the right to ask them to leave, without a
>>> specific "excuse" like "you left food in the kitchen" or "you were caught
>> All you just described is the current status quo. Do you disagree?
> I believe that the status quo is easily interpreted to default to
> unwelcome, meaning that we need to change our wording to clarify welcoming
> to newcomers. If we do that we will have more people coming who are good
> for noisebridge and get more involved, including becoming associate
> members, and that will improve everything.
> I do agree that recent changes have helped to reduce the false belief that
> everyone has a right to noisebridge regardless of behavior or acceptance by
> the community.
> As for your last suggestion, about a process and incentives for
>>> generating hands-on help in the space, I truly believe that inclusion (by
>>> the associate membership invitation extended to everyone) and improved
>>> quality of the space resulting from the new policies will get us more
>>> people and more hands.
>> Even without AM's, Nb already HAS radical inclusion. Do you disagree?
>> Radical inclusion has not produced helpers. Do you disagree?
> I don't think noisebridge should practice radical inclusion, and i think
> that when we have, it has not resulted in improved conditions.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss