[Noisebridge-discuss] amendments to membership proposal - associate members and 24/7 hours
Jeffrey Carl Faden
jeffreyatw at gmail.com
Tue Oct 22 20:48:37 UTC 2013
Okay... sorry for the list-bomb (not my usual thing, but it's Noisebridge-discuss, what do you expect?), but what I meant was, I agree that people doing nothing shouldn't be at Noisebridge, but asking them to leave at any time is not a policy that's easily enforceable. It's much easier to find the time at which people are most unproductive - 11pm through 10am - and prevent non-members from being there.
I think this makes "good people", in your words, see membership as a good incentive in case they need to work late. And if not, there's always member endorsement.
I'm not seeing enough evidence of productive non-members being "kicked out" and this having an adverse effect. Who is complaining about not being endorsed and having to leave? Why isn't a member endorsing them, in that case? Is it because the individual is so engrossed in their work that they don't feel the need to communicate with the people who help run the space? Is simple communication being construed by the non-member as a violation of privacy?
It's not like asking someone to leave the space during members-only hours is condemning them to a night on the street... unless it is, in which case they shouldn't have been using Noisebridge as a shelter in the first place. Non-endorsed non-members can always find somewhere else to work, and if they'd been using tools at the space, they can continue using them the next day.
On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
> On second read of your email, I think we're in agreement, so sorry for not reading the whole message before I wrote this. Disregard!
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think this is the fundamental disagreement:
>> "I would almost rather have people sitting around doing nothing than have a policy that forces good people out the door."
>> I disagree fully with this statement. Noisebridge isn't a do-nothing space, it's a hackerspace. If it's been concluded that nothing of value is accomplished by non-members between the hours of 11pm and 10am, then they certainly shouldn't be there.
>> On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Alan Rockefeller <alanrockefeller at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When I first read about this proposal I thought that it was an additional tool that could be appled as needed to kick out people who were just bumming around and not working on anything. I thought that it was understood that if they were being productive and not bothering anyone that they would not be asked to leave when their sponsor does.
>>> It appears that it is being taken too seriously, and that good people are being asked to leave. That is unexcellent.
>>> If I was hacking something and someone asked me to leave even though I was not bothering anyone, I would be pissed. And that is not a good way to treat people new to the space.
>>> How many hackers do we have to kick out in order to get the people that are just using nb as a roof to leave?
>>> It seems that this policy is adding unnecessary rules that affect both good and bad people. Perhaps it should be adjusted somehow so if someone is soldering or coding and their sponsoring member leaves, people do not feel the need to make the productive person leave?
>>> I would almost rather have people sitting around doing nothing than have a policy that forces good people out the door.
>>> Perhaps a better solution is to ask people who are loitering to leave? Perhaps a no loitering policy or guideline? Or no loitering from 11pm until 9am?
>>> Or maybe we don‘t a guideline and should just start asking people to leave and come back to a meeting any time we notice someone using the space inappropriately.
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss