[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Jean-Luc Picard atari2600a at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 03:03:57 UTC 2013

Almost forgot to mention-- this would require no modification to the 
existing governing structure of the techno-anarchist hackerspace, & 
could effectively be used to identify 'true' or 'initiated' members.  
Banning could simply mean revoking this token or whatever & what's 
already in place: ex-communication.

On 10/01/2013 08:00 PM, Jean-Luc Picard wrote:
> 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