[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleepers

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Wed Jan 29 03:26:18 UTC 2014


We *did* consense on having member (+guests) hours only, and then
people objected and so we switched back.

d.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey, how long did the trial period end up lasting?
>
> Also, I think that while the members-only hours would help cut down on the
> sleeping problem, I don't think it would solve it. I still think a
> no-sleeping-between-hours-X-and-Y would be a good idea, along with
> prescribing a ban/suspension from the space for repeat offenders.
>
> But again, I feel like consensus will prevent this or any other compromise
> from happening.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Jeffrey Carl Faden <jeffreyatw at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I hope we're all remembering that we tried closing the space a few months
>> ago, and some people complained and cut the trial period short, resulting in
>> the whole "associate member" business instead.
>>
>> Is there anything different about what's being suggested now?
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Madelynn Martiniere
>> <mmartiniere at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 I find this idea most excellent.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A few years ago I suggested making the space "members only" after
>>> midnight to reduce the number of people using Noisebridge as a crashpad. I
>>> think that's a good idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Dean Mao <dean.mao at hackerdojo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We did some things at the Hacker Dojo that reduced the number of
>>>> sleepers significantly.  There's still 2 homeless that are sleeping at the
>>>> Dojo but it's less than before.  We disabled our free wifi at night and we
>>>> made it a rule that only members can be present after 10pm.  It wasn't
>>>> strictly enforced or anything, but it still reduced the number of transients
>>>> significantly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should have a member party at night when we find some sleepers
>>>>> and confront them then and there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Gregory Dillon
>>>>> <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you offered a proposal that banned shooting heroin in the bathroom,
>>>>>> it could pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is precisely the policy gridlock that consensus puts Noisebridge
>>>>>>> in: there's no way consensus can be reached to say "sleeping is banned" or
>>>>>>> "sleeping is allowed". As I've said before, we've had incidents of people
>>>>>>> shooting heroin in the bathroom, but we don't have a policy that says you
>>>>>>> can't shoot heroin in the bathroom. As such, the issue never gets resolved
>>>>>>> and conflict continues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Curtis, sleepers who are kicked out are never confronted about it at
>>>>>>> a meeting. They just come back to Noisebridge the next night to sleep.
>>>>>>> Perhaps we should have these individual confrontations at meetings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Al
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Gregory Dillon
>>>>>>> <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Hannah   Thank you, for your insight into where the community
>>>>>>>> stands.  polarized without a "bridge".  I will  withdraw the proposal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But still, correct me if I'm wrong, there is also  no consensed
>>>>>>>> policy against sleeping either   The idea was to begin defining a policy
>>>>>>>> that had safeguards from day one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm very much opposed to your proposal as it's currently written;
>>>>>>>>> it reads as if you're saying that there should be alternatives to banning
>>>>>>>>> people for sleeping, but as we don't currently have a policy of auto-banning
>>>>>>>>> people for sleeping a specific policy of offering alternatives is
>>>>>>>>> unnecessary and only serves to be confusing and take up meeting time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Gregory Dillon
>>>>>>>>> <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Al, let me think about your advice.  I agree that my proposal is
>>>>>>>>>> accurately described as vague.   But that it is purposeful vague because
>>>>>>>>>> that reflects reality.   In life, there are some concepts that are vague but
>>>>>>>>>> still express broad principles.  The community view on sleeping at
>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge is currently vague but I think there are some broad principles
>>>>>>>>>> of agreement..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have tried to articulate what I believe is consensable:  that
>>>>>>>>>> many agree sleeping at Noisebride is taking up too much energy at meetings,
>>>>>>>>>> that sleeping at Noisebridge is harming the space, but that gray areas
>>>>>>>>>> exist, that some "sanctioning" event should be triggered by sleeping at
>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge, but the actual "sanction" should depend on the circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My consensus proposal says that there should be some “sanction”
>>>>>>>>>> for sleeping at Noisebridge, but that they should be effected only after
>>>>>>>>>> considering the full circumstance, and therefore the range of “sanctions”
>>>>>>>>>> should be broad.    Maybe the sanction is only a verbal warning that people
>>>>>>>>>> are going to be watching if your are sleeping too often.  Or on the other
>>>>>>>>>> end, it looks like your are not hacking but are are setting up residency
>>>>>>>>>> there, our lease doesn’t allow that and that residency threatens the
>>>>>>>>>> existence of Noisebridge, so a strict sanction is appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Al, I’ll consider your advice,  but I would not want  a specific
>>>>>>>>>> actionable proposal that would  act as a “sentencing guidelines” based on 30
>>>>>>>>>> different sleeping scenarios.  I want to trust the wisdom of the group to
>>>>>>>>>> implement an answer based on the broad principles that sleeping should have
>>>>>>>>>> some response from the community, but the sanctions could vary widely.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Al Sweigart
>>>>>>>>>> <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Greg, the consensus proposal seems really vague: I'm not sure
>>>>>>>>>>> what the actual policy or guidelines it proposes are. Do you want to take
>>>>>>>>>>> that off the consensus item list and instead have it as a discussion item at
>>>>>>>>>>> the meeting? The consensus proposals are really for actionable and
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly-worded policy, but it looks more like you'd like to have a
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation on it to determine what the policy should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Gregory Dillon
>>>>>>>>>>> <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Monad,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a consensus proposal up for consideration that asks for
>>>>>>>>>>>> circumspection and "slack" for people found sleeping when it is due.   It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a purposefully a soft measure that I hope can get support from all ends of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the spectrum on this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many members of the community will feel that my proposal does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not go far enough to be a  solution on sleeping at Noisebridge, and there
>>>>>>>>>>>> may be  laissez fairests who favor unrestrained sleep locations.   But I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think that is its strength.   A workable compromise.    I ask you to
>>>>>>>>>>>> consider it as a way to address the sleeping issue, while being caring and
>>>>>>>>>>>> considerate that people are finding it hard to find a place to lay their
>>>>>>>>>>>> head down to sleep.
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Paul Monad <immonad at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only tool we have at the moment is:  personally wake them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask if they are sponsored then ... , or asking them to leave and come to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting.   Jake pointed out certain individuals should be given slack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a short time.  Circumspection and discretion is mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They invariably say they were asleep for a very short time.  If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> left alone, is soon back asleep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As many as possible should speak directly with the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals because this is a community of doers.  It shouldn't be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts of the few. Perception is important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who wants to participate but have transportation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems please contact me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ronald Cotoni
>>>>> Systems Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dean Mao
>>>> dean.mao at hackerdojo.com
>>>> Come visit us, we love new people!
>>>> www.hackerdojo.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list