[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal for noisebridge membership changes

spinach williams spinach.williams at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 15:07:05 UTC 2013

On Oct 2, 2013 5:45 AM, "Leif Ryge" <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:59:13PM -0700, Jake wrote:
> > 1:  I don't think we should do it this way part of the time, i think we
> > be this way 24/7 all the fucking time.  anyone who comes in the door
> > introduced to a person who will sponsor them at that time, or
> > 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
> > happen very infrequently but if it does, I don't think we're losing
> > If a person was going to come to noisebridge but there was nobody there
> > wanted to give them a tour/introduction, they are better off coming back
> > another time.
> I don't think that scenario would be infrequent, but that scenario isn't
> actually my main objection. It has always been the case that people
without a
> key or code occassionally cannot get in to NB, because nobody is there or
> nobody feels like answering the doorbell, and I think that is fine. My
> objection is to the drastic shift in experience of being told that guests
> have an individual member claim responsiblity for them while they're
there, vs
> being told that they're welcome to use any tools there that they feel
> comfortable using and that they're responsible for themselves.
word. i'm definitely not okay with explaining or justifying my presence to
others, and i wouldn't ask the same of anyone else. when folks are
disrespectful of the space or the people in it, ask them to go. it won't
kill you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131002/5834ad2a/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list