[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

Jake jake at spaz.org
Wed Oct 2 06:56:26 UTC 2013


and how has that strategy been working for you?

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, jim wrote:

>
>    Your intention may not be the reality, as
> in unintended consequences. I believe Leif's
> description is credible and likely.
>    We cannot legislate problems away; we
> have to deal with them. Yes, it's frustrating.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 18:59 -0700, Jake wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, 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"
>>
>> The intention behind my proposal AND my full expectation of its outcome is
>> a 0% reduction in admittance of guests and a 100% ijncrease in the proper
>> introduction and induction of those guests, resluting in a 1000% increase
>> in respect for and understanding of noisebridge's culture of excellence.
>>
>> -jake
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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