[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Jake jake at spaz.org
Wed Oct 2 02:00:23 UTC 2013


no thanks for your non-constructive and counterproductive input.


On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, jim wrote:

> I agree with Leif!
> This is a bad proposal, albeit well-intentioned.
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 00:09 +0000, Leif Ryge wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:10:29AM -0700, Jake wrote:
>>> Last week it was proposed that Noisebridge make changes to our
>>> access policy.  The basic idea is that if someone is a Member or
>>> Associate Member of Noisebridge, they are allowed to be in the space
>>> at any time (with the usual exception of leaving when asked for
>>> conflict resolution purposes)
>>> Further it should be that if someone who is not a Member or
>>> Associate Member of the space, they can be in the space if they are
>>> the guest of a Member or Associate Member who is present.
>>> In most ways this will cause only a subtle ripple in the way
>>> Noisebridge has been working until now.  If a person is in the space
>>> and the person who let them in has left, if they are not doing
>>> anything objectionable it is unlikely that anyone will even ask them
>>> if they have a sponsor.
>>> However, if someone is being unexcellent and there is no one present
>>> who is their sponsor, it is now possible to ask the person to leave
>>> due to no fault of their own.
>>> This is very valuable, because up until now it has been necessary to
>>> wait until someone does something fucked up, and then try to use
>>> that as a lever to get them to leave.  This generally leads to
>>> unpleasantness, especially since you are inherently asking someone
>>> to admit to wrongdoing by the act of leaving voluntarily.  This has
>>> been nothing but trouble the whole time, and 90% of the time when
>>> someone is being shitty, our response is to let it continue because
>>> the alternative is getting in an argument with an asshole.
>>> From now on, with this new arrangement, Noisebridge is by default
>>> open only to Member and Associate Members and their guests.  Of
>>> course anyone who rings the doorbell is very likely to be let in by
>>> a Member or Associate Member, and is sponsored by the person who
>>> lets them in until that person leaves or ends the sponsorship (in
>>> case of a bad fit for that person at noisebridge).  If a person
>>> without a sponsor is present and a problem comes up, any Member or
>>> Associate Member can volunteer to be their sponsor if one thinks
>>> they should stay and continue hacking (after solving the problem
>>> with their new sponsor's help).
>>> I see this as a win for all visions of Noisebridge access policy,
>>> since it takes away nothing from what we can choose to do, and it
>>> gives us so much more freedom to do what we need to do without
>>> insulting people who need to leave.
>>> I think the most important aspect of this arrangement is the concept
>>> of Accountability.  If a Member or Associate Member does something
>>> questionable at noisebridge, there is definitely a way to contact
>>> that person to discuss the situation, and almost certainly a friend
>>> of theirs who is also a Member or Associate Member who can help
>>> facilitate problem solving.  This is how we maintain the excellence
>>> of our community and environment, by Accountability.
>>> With Guests, there is no inherent accountability.  When someone
>>> walks in the door and is greeted by no one, and answers to no one,
>>> they have been told no rules and there is not even a person who they
>>> can ask questions about what is appropriate for our space.
>>> With this new system, every person who is let in the door is likely
>>> to be introduced to a specific person who will explain, "You are my
>>> guest here, and if there are any issues such as with another person,
>>> you can come to me or use my name as your sponsor, as long as I am
>>> here." This means that every new person is immediately granted
>>> accountability to our network through a Member or Associate Member
>>> as their proxy server.
>>> Any guest who, for example is told that they should not be sleeping
>>> on the couch in the library, will either answer by correcting their
>>> behavior (hopefully), or they will involve their sponsor somehow
>>> (perhaps by invoking their name as a defense of their activity).  At
>>> that point their sponsor, who as a Member or Associate Member has
>>> accountability to the community, can be asked to solve that problem
>>> in a productive way.  When they come to their Guest and affirm that
>>> their invitation did not extend to permission to sleep in the
>>> library, the guest sees it coming from the same person who
>>> originally let them in and thus has the right to make them leave if
>>> they don't stop fucking up.
>>> If the person sleeping in the library isn't able to produce a Member
>>> or Associate Member who is present at the time, and none who are
>>> present want to sponsor them at that time, they can be asked to
>>> leave due to no fault of their own, but simply because it is
>>> noisebridge policy.
>>> One justification for this policy is that Noisebridge Members and
>>> Associate Members look out for one another by protecting the space
>>> and the people in it from those who are not excellent enough to
>>> attract a sponsor. We do that for each other so that we can benefit
>>> from the improved culture and environment, as well as decreased
>>> entropy and theft, that resluts.
>>> I am out of town so i won't be able to participate in the meeting,
>>> but two things I wanted to emphasize are:
>>> 1:  I don't think we should do it this way part of the time, i think
>>> we shoud be this way 24/7 all the fucking time.  anyone who comes in
>>> the door gets introduced to a person who will sponsor them at that
>>> time, or alternately give them a quick tour and then an invitation
>>> to come back another time, or perhaps there are no members in the
>>> space who want to sponsor a guest at that time and the person
>>> doesn't get to come in.  I think this last option will happen very
>>> infrequently but if it does, I don't think we're losing anything.
>>> If a person was going to come to noisebridge but there was nobody
>>> there who wanted to give them a tour/introduction, they are better
>>> off coming back another time.
>>> 2:  Remember that this is a subtle change.  The biggest practical
>>> effect is that it makes it possible to tell someone (who has NO
>>> sponsor) that they have to leave due to no fault of their own, but
>>> simply because of policy.  This is a problem-solving feature and a
>>> de-escalation strategy of which we should recognize the value.
>>> So, come tuesday, pass the fucking thing and don't limit it to
>>> certain hours.
>>> -jake
>>> P.S. the typo was on purpose to see if you were paying attention.
>> My impression is that most people who have become involved with Noisebridge
>> over the years would have been prevented from doing so by this policy. People
>> arrive, they don't know anybody, and the fact that they're welcome is usually a
>> critical part of what causes them to do awesome stuff at Noisebridge. If they
>> are instead told that they're only welcome when or if someone is being
>> responsible for them, well, that would be a very different experience and I
>> think it would lead to significantly less awesome happening.
>> This is literally[1] a proposal to kill the golden-egg-laying goose.
>> ~leif
>> 1: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally
>> ps: the wording on the Current_Consensus_Items wiki page is nothing like the
>> proposal above; it says "modify open hours so that nights are open-access to
>> Members and to guests of any sponsoring Member also present in the space"
>> pps: the misspelled word is in the first sentence of the 3d-to-last paragraph
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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