[Noisebridge-discuss] The legalities.

Kevin Schiesser bfb at riseup.net
Sun Apr 6 02:39:01 UTC 2014


Al Sweigart:
> Sorry Kevin, I made the assumption because the Current Consensus Page had
> linked to it and your github account had posted that particular diff.
> 

Which particular diff? The assumption I was calling out was that I would
block efforts to legislate against sleep at Noisebridge. Patently
untrue. I hold consensus dear, and go to great length to *not* block.
This includes slowing down a process to give my input and get more input
from others. Consensus building is community building. I cannot relate
to the sense of urgency and frustration with delays. There's benefit and
learnings to be had from the journey, I value them.

> Maybe some questions would clear things up: Why did your version of the
> community guidelines specifically strip out the part about sleeping at the
> space?
> 

I envision a few phases to this particular experiment.

Phase 1 - Codify current understanding of agreements made to participate
in the space. Mostly already spelled out on the wiki or by signs posted
in the space.

Phase 2 - Begin to incrementally test new agreements.

Phase 3 - Adopt agreements that maintain the wildness and improve the
accessibility of the space, while also weeding out the failures. (Please
excuse or enjoy the reference to the National Park Service, I just
picked up Desert Solitaire today, and observe parallels to Noisebridge.)

> Cause all it has in its place is vague wording and nothing that, to me at
> least, would spell out actual definitions of what it means to live at the
> space and what people can do to prevent people from living at the space.
> 

To affect change at Noisebridge requires being at Noisebridge. No policy
prevents people from abusing the space. However, having a policy adopted
on by the consensus of Noisebridge will give clarity to those unsure or
hesitant to prevent abuse when they see it. At least this is my
understanding.

> Here's an assumption on my part: You want it to be okay for people to sleep
> at Noisebridge way more frequently than most people would say is okay, but
> you know you can't get an official policy condoning that passed. So instead
> you water down any policy attempts to curb sleeping to be toothless.
> 

Here's how I responded previously to a similar statement...

The sort answer is I have personal disagreements with creating an
official prohibition on sleep at Noisebridge. However, if a prohibition
is what's needed, then I won't stand in the way. I agree that we need to
improve our filter of who contributes and who abuses the space, and keep
abusers out.

Slightly longer answer...

I've been awoken from naps in parks too many times while wearing street
clothes. While serving as a Parks Department employee I slept in a park
nearly every day during lunch without bother. To me, exceptional
enforcement of rules is often worse than the transgression.


-Kevin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140406/bd7be124/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list