[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: how Noisebridge could improve
christoph.maier at ieee.org
Fri Apr 11 22:36:20 UTC 2014
As much as I find that it complicates matters,
you can devise rules, mission statemens [see
https://noisebridge.net/wiki/File:Noisebridge_Mission_Statement.JPG for my
stab at it],
visions, etc. etc.
all you want, but in the end, whether stuff works or doesn't depends on
specific people and their idiosyncratic way of making stuff work.
And those people change from time to time ... anything long-term at
noisebridge is beyond my imagination.
I can think of a bazillion reasons why what works with Frantisek doesn't
work with anyone else.
The alternative is that Law Enforcement (i.e. folks who like to enforce
laws on others), or chaos.
Well, some folks make Chaos AND things work :-P
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a romantic idea, but in practicality it's a fragile arrangement.
> Whatever you think of having people live in the space (for, against,
> "it's complicated"), whether we are zoned for live-work or not, I'm
> sure anyone reading this can think of a dozen different reasons why
> reliance on a single person's motivations is not a long-term solution
> for anything at Noisebridge.
> Not that you were suggesting so, Christoph. I am just taking the
> opportunity to make the point.
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Christoph Maier
> <christoph.maier at ieee.org> wrote:
> > After running into Frantisek at Seoul Hackerspace, I imagine how
> > as trusted squatter-in-residence, would improve both friendliness and
> > security of a hackerspace. But some <expletive deleted> tore out half the
> > kitchen.
> > On Apr 11, 2014 7:58 AM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Addendum:
> >> Our lack of security can also be chalked up to a failure of imagination.
> >> Oh, I know we've imagined things, but largely they have been along the
> >> lines of doing one or two individual things, which really could not
> >> work on their own because of the limitedness of their scope and/or the
> >> unfeasibility of the resources (e.g. humans) needed to perpetuate
> >> them.
> >> We have never totally imagined the security of the space as a system.
> >> Please don't take me to mean that security is hopeless. I mean mostly
> >> to say that at Noisebridge it is Very Hard.
> >> Larger post coming soon.
> >> --Naomi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss