[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge as "facility"

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 23:35:15 UTC 2014


Actually this is just One Question.  One.  I already laid out the
"who" as part of the definitions I created.

You are continuing to disregard the definitions and instead conflate
terms, which will not help the discussion move forward.

You are, right now, working against the goal of getting everybody on
the same page.

I was very careful in my framing, so if you don't like the framing, or
you don't like the definitions (those are basically the same things),
then propose new distinctions or make a new thread that reframes the
discussion.

--Naomi


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Noisebridge as facility is one question.
>
> WHO noisebridge serves is a separate question. Related, but separate.
>
> Noisebridge could be a facility for whomever walks in the door, hacker or not.
>
> OR, Noisebridge could be a FACILITY FOR HACKERS.
>
> Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> YES. And those "people" are all of us, not some paid staffr. Why can't we say "if you are going to use Noisebridge, then you are expected to share the responsibility for maintenance."
>>
>>That is actually the OPPOSITE of the thing I have named as
>>Noisebridge-as-facility.  That is the model of
>>Noisebridge-as-hackerspace.
>>
>>Noisebridge-as-facility entails a model of assigning responsibilities
>>to a named few such that all resources can be guaranteed available,
>>even to people who have no intention of helping maintain the space.
>>
>>The reason we need to make this distinction is that there are people
>>who use Noisebridge who have little to no intention of participating
>>in the model of Noisebridge-as-hackerspace.
>>
>>If we agree that a functional Noisebridge is a hackerspace-Noisebridge
>>as you envision, where everyone MUST participate and maintain its
>>resources (nevermind how you'd enforce that), the logical consequence
>>is that we have make people who don't intend to participate feel
>>unwelcome so they will leave.
>>
>>If, instead, we agree that a functional Noisebridge is a
>>facility-Noisebridge where a handful of named people are responsible
>>for maintaining the resources, then the conversation about who is "in"
>>the community becomes very different.
>>
>>To participate in a discussion like this you have to accept some
>>arbitrary definitions and be willing to work with them.  OR explicitly
>>say, "those definitions are bullshit" and explain why.
>>
>>--Naomi
>>
>>On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2014 10:15:54 AM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm using the word "facility" in the same sense of a library, where people
>>>> can expect to read books and use computers, which are maintained by people
>>>> whose job it is to maintain the computers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! But the "responsible people" are all the members and users of the
>>> space. The responsibility should shared by the community.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Hackerspace", on the other hand, does not (to me) imply a guaranteed set
>>>> of services -- only a smattering of tools and a space to use them in.
>>>
>>>
>>> then you should add "a smattering of broken, dysfunctional tools and piles
>>> upon piles of disorganized junk."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As for your quote: it doesn't matter what's written down. It matters what
>>>> people do and believe.
>>>
>>>
>>> We should make what's written down matter, so that what people do and expect
>>> and believe are based on shared goals and values. Currently, NB suffers from
>>> CONFLICTING goals and values. If NB is going to be "only a smattering of
>>> tools and a space to use them in" then FINE-- but let's all get on the same
>>> page about that. Currently, we are NOT all on the same page about that.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If Noisebridge were to be accepted by all as being a "facility"... We
>>>> would start naming people as responsible for maintenance
>>>
>>>
>>> YES. And those "people" are all of us, not some paid staffr. Why can't we
>>> say "if you are going to use Noisebridge, then you are expected to share the
>>> responsibility for maintenance."
>>>
>>> Currently, we say "you can use Noisebridge, break tools, and leave a mess,
>>> and that's ok." This seems self-destructive to the space, and disrespectful
>>> to the few who willingly take responsibility and clean up after others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and then we would probably pick schedules for those people to be on-hand
>>>> at certain times.
>>>
>>>
>>> YES. If you're a user of the space, you should be required to sign up for X
>>> volunteer hours per Y months.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm having the discussion because it needs to be had.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you, Naomi!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Naomi Theora Most
>>naomi at nthmost.com
>>+1-415-728-7490
>>
>>skype: nthmost
>>
>>http://twitter.com/nthmost



-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list