[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

jim jim at well.com
Wed Oct 2 02:52:26 UTC 2013



    My input was sincere. I support Noisebridge. 
I do not like the seeming inevitable consequence 
of the proposal because it puts a severe 
constraint on something I value: welcomeness. 
    I think Leif described it well. 



On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 19:00 -0700, Jake wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> no thanks for your non-constructive and counterproductive input.
> 
> -jake
> 
> 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