[Noisebridge-discuss] amendments to membership proposal - associate members and 24/7 hours
andrew at pachakutech.com
Tue Oct 22 22:35:56 UTC 2013
Bullshit detection? Sorry, I've given Nb no lies; I program Android Java
better than most, and often exercise my creativity in helping form
non-profits. I use nb as a workspace, and the nearest my highly active
sexual life comes to the bridge is over at the Sycamore. And here I'm
breaking a personal rule not to psychologize:
You, however, are given to assuaging feelings of personal inadequacy with
projecting horrific psychological profiles of those around you--see your
portrayal of my calm handling of your incredible failure as a mediator as
something out of a psychothriller you saw in the 70's.
To ask Danny's question: what do /you/ do at Nb? Here's mine: are you
honest in your dealings with Noisebridge?
If Noisebridge was committed to doing work and communicating about
technology, I'd be there more often; instead, the political games of people
feeling put-down /over e-mail/ make the space too emotionally and mentally
taxing to deal with on anything like a regular basis; we need a grievance
policy for so many reasons, and soon, before everyone retreats into
headphones and snarling at socialism.
Amor y Libertad
On Oct 22, 2013 1:29 PM, "Liz Henry" <lizhenry at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am a member, and will always block your membership. It is not just
> capital that's blocking you. It is also bullshit detection.
> - Liz
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>wrote:
>> I was literally just about to re-unsubscribe to this list, and then...
>> "way for starving hackers to contribute to Noisebridge - some of our
>> first members were full Members even though a number of them could not
>> afford any money for Membership. I remember a certain hacker who was..."
>> Is begging for expansion; my membership has been twice blocked by
>> capital: once by Tom identifying one of my sponsors as being late on dues,
>> and then later when my membership came up for consensus and I hadn't picked
>> up my first contract in the city. I've co-founded 3 successful, persistent
>> radical leftist collectives, participated in another 3, and have--till
>> Noisebridge--never seen sweat equity denied.
>> That said, I like what Jake is circling around here; a recognized
>> mechanism for frequent users of the space to ask the valid question "what
>> are you using Noisebridge for?" and deal with answers that don't coincide
>> with the culture of past and present hackers.
>> I don't see how that necessitates manifesting a castrated membership
>> class, though; couldn't we formalize the shelving permissions, or host a
>> l337 noisebridge git repo or email service as a reward for those who would
>> like something in return for their monetary contributions?
>> Still tied by the heart
>> On Oct 22, 2013 2:09 AM, "Jacob Appelbaum" <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
>>> > tl;dr at the end of this post is the amended consensus item for this
>>> > week
>>> > I just found out that an excellent hacker was working on stuff late
>>> > at noisebridge last night, and was asked to leave at 11:00PM. This
>>> > is terribly sad and should not have happened. I consider it to be a
>>> > serious bug in the system.
>>> Indeed, why ask them to leave? As a matter of closing the space to
>>> people in the out group? It seems bad to create an out group that could
>>> ever include a productive, excellent hacker that isn't actively
>>> misbehaving in a way that is negatively impacting the space...
>>> > I tracked down the cause of this crash to the horrible mutation of
>>> > my last proposal, specifically, making the members-and-guests policy
>>> > only take effect after 23:00 (11PM) until 10AM (I had wanted it to
>>> > be 24/7)
>>> > With this current borked policy, people continue to come into
>>> > noisebridge without meeting anyone, without getting a sponsor, no
>>> > tour and no introduction. And regardless of whether they're hacking
>>> > or abusing the space, they are asked to leave at 11PM by the same
>>> > anonymous unfriendly mystery that let them in. This is total shit.
>>> > So, I think we need to end the limited-hours policy and change it to
>>> > a full-time policy, something that we can maintain at all hours. If
>>> > members of the space want to ask people to leave at 11PM (or 2PM or
>>> > noon or anytime), they can still do so, if those non-members are
>>> > without a live sponsor at that time. Importantly, this means that
>>> > Members and other people who understand the policy will explain it to
>>> > people coming in the door, regardless of what time they came in.
>>> > That way, if someone is working on stuff and it starts getting late,
>>> > they will be able to ask someone to sponsor their continued hacking
>>> > rather than just be carelessly booted out.
>>> I'm confused by your statement.
>>> Are you saying that the policy results in the suffering of folks who
>>> shouldn't be suffering, so you'd like that policy to be an all-hours
>>> policy? That seems less than ideal. If people are otherwise excellent
>>> and then they're asked to leave, regardless of the time, it strikes me
>>> as a bad policy.
>>> > In order for us to move to full-time Members rule, there need to be
>>> > more Members. I have a solution for that which should be less
>>> > objectionable than the proposal i've put out there for this week.
>>> This is really depressing here Jake - full-time Members? Next up, we'll
>>> have partial members?
>>> > I propose that we add a tier of membership, called Associate Member,
>>> > which is a person who has been consensed upon to be an Associate
>>> > Member. Their duty to noisebridge does not include a mandatory cash
>>> > donation but a general "regular contributions to Noisebridge".
>>> I can't tell if this is trolling. Is this serious? We've always had a
>>> way for starving hackers to contribute to Noisebridge - some of our
>>> first members were full Members even though a number of them could not
>>> afford any money for Membership. I remember a certain hacker who was
>>> sleeping in the space before we had an idea of proper security
>>> considerations for the 83c space. His contributions were worth more than
>>> money - his time was amazingly well invested and kept some important
>>> equipment safe.
>>> There were others who could not afford to contribute money to the space
>>> and they were not marginalized as a matter of funds.
>>> > Associate Members will not be able to block consensus items. But
>>> > they will be able to sponsor guests while they are present in the
>>> > space, like full members can.
>>> Membership is about participation in consensus and about having a
>>> specific legal role. It is not about privileges generally. We rejected
>>> the NGO style "membership" that isn't legally worth anything - this is
>>> not the membership of joining say, the World Wild Life Fund - capital
>>> 'M' Members are legally in control of the power structure. They can
>>> legally throw the board out, they can legally do all kinds of things and
>>> have actual power. This is by design.
>>> > At the same time I propose that we remove the time restriction on
>>> > the policy of Members and their Guests only. This may sound like it
>>> > will create a problem when there are not enough members around the
>>> > space, but in practice it should encourage members and guests to get
>>> > to know one another at all times, rather than only at 11PM when
>>> > guests are being asked to leave (which is how it is now)
>>> Yes, it sounds like a problem. It sounds like there is already a problem
>>> and you're attempting to solve it by making the problem a permanent
>>> state of problem. A New Noisebridge Normal.
>>> > When it is normal for every guest to be introduced to a Member or
>>> > Associate Member, when night falls and the membership wants to ask
>>> > some people to leave who are without sponsors, there will be enough
>>> > awareness of the guest sponsorship policy that guests who want to
>>> > continue to stay will be aware that they can ask members to sponsor
>>> > them so they can continue hacking. This is the intended goal - to
>>> > increase the connection between guests and members (not to just kick
>>> > out non-members all the time)
>>> > the amended proposal should be worded as follows:
>>> > A new Tier of Membership to Noisebridge shall exist, called
>>> > Associate Member. People can become Associate Members through the
>>> > normal membership process. Associate Members are not required to
>>> > contribute to Noisebridge financially, only to "contribute regularly"
>>> > to Noisebridge.
>>> Please don't do this - it is absolutely revolting.
>>> > Associate Members, while present, can host non-members in the space
>>> > just like Full Members. But Associate Members cannot block consensus
>>> > like Members.
>>> They're not Members by law - they're literally a different legal group.
>>> It is a meaningless class - there are two classes of power - inside
>>> Noisebridge as capital 'M' Members and those who are merely visitors,
>>> guests or people otherwise unaffiliated with the space. The board is
>>> specifically designed to be a position of liability, not a position of
>>> legal authority that is free to decide things without the general will
>>> of the Membership. Changing this dynamic has legal consequences but it
>>> also has a major social impact.
>>> > Also the policy of Noisebridge as a space open only to Members and
>>> > their guests shall be changed to 24 hours a day instead of 23:00 to
>>> > 10:00. This means that at any time, a person who is without a live
>>> > sponsor in the space can be told that if they cannot find a new live
>>> > sponsor promptly they should pack up and come back another time,
>>> > perhaps Tuesday night.
>>> This policy nearly completes the full circle of turning Noisebridge into
>>> Hacker Dojo. Without the good parts, I might add.
>>> > The spirit of the last paragraph is not to exclude people but rather
>>> > to encourage a connection between each guest of the space and at
>>> > least one Member of the space at all times.
>>> That is rather Orwellian. Though George would have said it more
>>> "Consensus rations have been raised to zero for all lower tiered
>>> All the best,
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Liz Henry
> lizhenry at gmail.com
> "Electric ladies will you sleep or will you preach?" -- Janelle Monae
> "Without models, it's hard to work; without a context, difficult to
> evaluate; without peers, nearly impossible to speak." -- Joanna Russ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss