[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge is now Members and their Guests only, 24/7 please read and learn about it

Jake jake at spaz.org
Sun Nov 3 04:44:36 UTC 2013

Hi Leif,

I recognize that there are problems with the current implementation of my 
ideas.  Keep in mind that both the latest and the previous consensed items 
happened when I was not present at the meeting, and were changed in 
significant ways from what I originally wrote.

I am about to propose changes to the wording of the latest proposal, to be 
more like what I wrote originally.  This means we will remove the language 
you attributed to me, below, that says "No other person shall be permitted 
at Noisebridge at any other time."  You should accept that I did not write 

I wrote "at any time, a person who is without a live sponsor in the space 
can be told that if they cannot find a new live sponsor promptly they 
should pack up and come back another time, perhaps Tuesday night."

if you read what you wrote below, you will see that you repeatedly say 
that I "wrote" the policies that you're objecting to, when in fact they 
were made while I was not at a meeting.  I am the last person you should 
be blaming for the changes that were made away from what I had suggested.

You should recognize that the problems you point out as having resulted 
from the first policy came from the amendment limiting it to certain 
hours, which I promptly helped eliminate to make a less offensive 
arrangement.  I know you are capable of understanding the intent here 
(look at what I proposed, not what was consensed) but:

the fact that you continue to ignore everyone who is screaming that 
noisebridge sucks and needs help disqualifies you from knowing what's best 
for the place.  You are basically telling your friends (not just me) that 
their complaints about the space don't even register on your radar.

Your question of what will happen when an annoying person acquires a 
sponsor is very valid.  The answer is that now that annoying person is 
connected to the community through a member or A.M.  That sponsor is 
someone who has a direct connection to the noisebridge community and can 
be expected to work through any problems their guest is causing and act as 
a bridge toward their guest.

Their sponsor can be asked by the community (at a meeting or through 
general discussion) to remedy problems with their guest or cease 
sponsoring them.  The guest has a connection to the community (through 
their sponsor), whereas an atomized guest under our previous policy has no 
reason to cooperate with our problem solving strategy.

Your proposal is telling:  you propose to take noisebridge back to the 
good old days when people could just come in off the street and do 
whatever they want any time.  And whoever was loudest, tallest, and had 
the least to lose, would get their way when someone smaller or more 
conflict-averse tried to ask them to stop.  That's your idea of problem 

Like building bunk beds to stop people using the space as a residence?
[this actually happened]

I guess that anyone who says "it used to be that way and it sucked, and it 
needed to change" just needs to shut up and do what you say, from 
thousands of miles away.


On Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Leif Ryge wrote:

> As I told you on IRC (before you sent this email) I'm not editing the front
> page because it seems to me that the text there accurately reflects the policy
> you wrote.

> The first version of your policy went in to effect a few weeks ago and has
> already resulted in lots of people feeling unwelcome, and in someone feeling
> justified bringing the police into the space to remove a non-member who was
> being asked to leave solely for being a non-member.

> Your representations of what other people believe are frequently (as in this
> case) gross misrepresentations. At least one of the four members at the meeting
> very much did not agree that this needed to be done (although he did consent to
> it, with reservations which you seem willfully ignorant of).

> Problems *are* solved by critically examining drastic changes before and while
> they're being made. Saying that criticism doesn't solve problems doesn't
> address the criticism.

> Your policy says "A member or associate member may at any time invite a person
> into Noisebridge and host that person at Noisebridge as long as that member or
> associate member remains at Noisebridge. No other person shall be permitted at
> Noisebridge at any other time."
> You've repeatedly indicated that you believe this won't have a significant
> negative impact because it will only be used to kick people out who are "doing
> something bad" (your words on IRC). Meanwhile, people at the recent meetings
> where your proposals have been discussed (which you have not attended) have
> repeatedly put an emphasis on *not* having selective enforcement of this
> policy. You're either being disingenuous or you're totally unaware of how your
> proposals are being received by the members of Noisebridge.
> In either case, selectively enforced policies are abhorrent and antithetical to
> the culture that Noisebridge was built and has thrived on.
> Cowardly authoritarians use arbitrary policies as a crutch: "sorry, I don't
> make the rules..." etc. When people are "doing something bad" you could already
> ask them to leave. I think using a technicality like "you need a sponsor to be
> here" actually makes it harder to address whatever bad thing they're doing.
> What happens when they get a sponsor? (I know: then you'll feel the need to try
> to ban their sponsor too, and on and on).
> TLDR: Authoritarianism is lazy, and toxic to a culture of being excellent.
> Proposal for consensus: Revoke the previous two members-only consensus items
> are return Noisebridge to being a place where people are welcome to do
> excellent things without asking for permission from anyone.
> ~leif
> ps: Noisebridge should select a new secretary. Tom told me a while ago that he
> is tired of the work, and I'm tired of seeing him attach the title to his email
> signature as if the position means something other than that he is responsible
> for doing some paperwork on Noisebridge's behalf. Any volunteers?

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list