[Noisebridge-discuss] why would hackers come to noisebridge?

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 17:07:24 UTC 2014


That /is/ pretty amazing.

I hope someone comes up with a theory-based way to calculate this metric.

Like, "based on $HACKERSPACE's gender diversity index, choice of
governance model, percentage participation by membership, and
percentage of activity on the mailing list, $HACKERSPACE has an
expected Time To Ban Patrick Keys of X weeks, 2 days, and 3 hours."


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
> I want you all to know that the concept of "Time taken to ban Patrick Keys"
> as a hackerspace-efficiency metric has completely made my day.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:05 AM, John Ellis <neurofog at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Considering he was the first to get formally banned from Noisebridge. It
>> didn't take long for a group of us to decide he wasn't welcome in the space,
>> and we'd ask him to leave if we saw him. The actual consensus came about a
>> week or two after that.
>>
>> How long did he last at Hacker Dojo?
>>
>> -John
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Dan Cote <terminationshok at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like how "time taken to ban Patrick Keyes" has become a metric for
>>> hackerspace administrative efficiency.
>>>
>>> Does Hacker Dojo ban many people?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Dean Mao <dean.mao at hackerdojo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Hacker Dojo is arguably younger than noisebridge and probably less
>>>> "membership-oriented" compared to noisebridge, but our membership has
>>>> skyrocketed to the point where it's hard to find an empty chair during
>>>> normal business hours.  We still have the occasional sleeper at night, but
>>>> because we are so fast at banning people, that problem usually doesn't
>>>> persist.  When we banned patrick keyes, it only required a meeting of 3-4
>>>> people and it was a done deal.  You guys should definitely reconsider how
>>>> you ban people.  We didn't have to ask all of our directors for ban approval
>>>> to make it happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hep, your description of Noisebridge is spot on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the difference that I think an active board can make:
>>>>> Noisebridge has taken to the extreme a philosophy that we shouldn't ban
>>>>> people or that we should give bad behavior effectively unlimited second
>>>>> chances. (The first person we banned was Patrick Keyes for sexually
>>>>> harassing multiple women, and even then it was pulling teeth to get him
>>>>> banned and not just suspended.) Consensus is what affords this: a tiny
>>>>> minority can block, delay, and in general abuse process to wear out their
>>>>> opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>> A board does not have to endlessly talk about policy and makes
>>>>> decisions by majority vote: a board can set policy and *gasp* make
>>>>> decisions. This includes suspending and banning people for bad behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Obligatory footnote about abuse of power, "define bad behavior",
>>>>> tyranny of the majority, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Consensus is what holds Noisebridge hostage: a 1% can have more power
>>>>> just because they have more volume, and meanwhile we can't get many new
>>>>> members because we are so afraid of extending this power to new people.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Al
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am with what hep said.  I am also with Naomi.  This is a
>>>>>> hackerspace.  Lets hack the system and figure out how to solve problems.  I
>>>>>> am also with Al that I feel sad that UU had to even exist because
>>>>>> noisebridge was not safe enough or good enough.  I also understand that some
>>>>>> people just like working with other females and don't even want to bother at
>>>>>> this stage of their lives.  I just feel it was mostly a response to
>>>>>> Noisebridge not being safe and not the latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am openly biased towards anarchism and lack of top-down control.
>>>>>>> But we can't keep shouting down the idea of "oversight" to address
>>>>>>> problems that Noisebridge has had for YEEAAARRRSSS when we've
>>>>>>> certainly given the Noisebridge traditional methods that long to fix
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the record, I don't agree with the idea of direct
>>>>>>> people-management or in changing the way we arrive at decisions at
>>>>>>> Noisebridge.  My idea of a positive change would be to have the board
>>>>>>> managing facilities and facilitating participation -- e.g. forming
>>>>>>> working groups.  I believe these improvements will make a lot of the
>>>>>>> other crap die down naturally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And as it turns out, that's what we're going to do first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:46 AM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> > And that would be different from what noisebridge has had in the
>>>>>>> > last 5yr
>>>>>>> > how? as it stands, many women do not feel safe at noisebridge
>>>>>>> > because of
>>>>>>> > sexual assault and the past somewhat failure to deal with it in a
>>>>>>> > manner
>>>>>>> > where women felt safe and listened to at nb. many valuable
>>>>>>> > contributing
>>>>>>> > people have left nb because of its failure to address major
>>>>>>> > infrastructure
>>>>>>> > problems. if having a more active board helps to stop sexual abuse
>>>>>>> > and makes
>>>>>>> > the culture more welcoming to those who would positively
>>>>>>> > contribute, then i
>>>>>>> > am 100% down with active management. i would like noisebridge to be
>>>>>>> > somewhere i can bring friends to interest them in hacking, bring my
>>>>>>> > childrens' school championship robotics team to inspire them to the
>>>>>>> > next
>>>>>>> > victory, not a place where i am fearful to go on my own because
>>>>>>> > there are no
>>>>>>> > protections or infrastructure to ensure basic safety.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > -hep
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Torrie Fischer
>>>>>>> > <tdfischer at hackerbots.net>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I think it is important to note that in the context of a
>>>>>>> >> hackerspace,
>>>>>>> >> there is
>>>>>>> >> a difference between managing the infrastructure and managing the
>>>>>>> >> people
>>>>>>> >> who
>>>>>>> >> hack on the infrastructure.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> From experience, just saying "active management" easily leads to
>>>>>>> >> bad times
>>>>>>> >> and, uh, rather verbose mailing list threads.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > hep
>>>>>>> > hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>>>>>> >     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>>>>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>>>>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> skype: nthmost
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>



-- 
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