[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Jean-Luc Picard atari2600a at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 03:00:24 UTC 2013

Why not use the laser cutter or 3D printers to create Noisebridge 
[associate] membership insignia, like how the armed forces in the US has 
challenge coins?

We could let people in, give them a tour, & if they pass a simple but 
hacktivist-centric test, they get the insignia to wear as a badge / tie 
around their necks / whatever.  Dues-paying members such as "member" 
members could have metal ones 3d- printed online on the NB dime, perhaps 
even w/ some cool key feature to the members closet lock or something!

Say, for example, when I first arrived, within 15 minutes someone 
challenged me to solve a rubiks cube, which I did admittedly a little 
rustily due to my own arrogance, but nonetheless completed. (I tried to 
do it eyes-closed for the last layer....twice)

We could have a test for every workstation made available for use to the 
public.  The parts corner could be a simple I Spy variant where they 
just have to recognize a few fundamental things.  The 3D printer could 
be printing a calibration cube, the turing room could be just attending 
a class, etc.

On 10/01/2013 07:52 PM, jim wrote:
>      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
> _______________________________________________
> 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