[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge residency
asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Jan 2 19:17:25 UTC 2014
I didn't want to color the discourse at the start with my opinion, but I
think this is a probably bad, definitely complicated idea. (But I want to
experiment and discuss ideas that are good and maybe-not-so-good.)
Historically, for Noisebridge this didn't work out when Frantisek was
living at the space for months. He cleaned up after himself and did some
sweeping, but the space and bathrooms were still messy and cluttered as
often as they were somewhat tidy.
The difference with this idea is that it would be publicly known and
accepted for someone to on occasion be sleeping overnight at the space, and
they would still have their own apartment (they wouldn't be living at
Noisebridge as their primary address.)
My main stipulation is that this person would be the *only* one sleeping in
the space, and would also ensure others are not sleeping at the space or
causing trouble at night.
I would definitely want a lot of things planned out and decided beforehand
about how this would work. But in general, I don't think it would work.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:45 AM, immonad <immonad at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What if only one red shirt scheduled per nite?
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Gregory Dillon
> Date:01/01/2014 6:53 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Adrian Chadd
> Cc: noisebridge-discuss
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge residency
> Asking for trouble.
> Too many people are going to be sleeping at Noisebridge claiming that they
> are the resident fixer and onsite 311.
> For me personally, I would like to use the space in the morning, and it
> already feels too much like it is going into someone's living room while
> they are still in their pajamas.
> This resident suggestion seem to have very large negatives, and for what
> uncertain benefit??
> Thumbs down.
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Too easily abused. They could have a 'room in an apt' that's just a
>> couch. In the kitchen. For $5 a month.
>> I suggest a different way of enticing responsibility. And no sleep rights.
>> On Jan 1, 2014 9:42 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> To clarify, by apartment I meant they would still maintain their own
>>> apartment as home. I didn't mean that they would set up an apartment at
>>> Noisebridge. They would go home to change and shower and that's where
>>> they'd keep their things. But they would also spend a large amount of time
>>> at Noisebridge, including sleeping at Noisebridge.
>>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I want to put this idea out there and see what people think. I think
>>>> this has been suggested before, but what if Noisebridge had a resident who
>>>> essentially stayed at Noisebridge to maintain the space and handle problems
>>>> at most hours. They would have their own apartment to store their
>>>> things/clothing and shower, but would spend several hours a day there and
>>>> could sleep at the space.
>>>> As opposed to the Noisebridge 311 phone line, this person could
>>>> immediately respond to issues in the space.
>>>> What do people think?
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Let's stay in touch. Greg
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss