[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 17:44:14 UTC 2014

Kevin is against banning sleeping at the space because he and his friends
like to sleep at the space. He helped build the "hacker stacker" bunk beds
that were in the space which, unsurprisingly, were used for more than just
short naps in the space.

Kevin will single-handedly block any measure to ban sleeping without
compromise, because consensus lets him do this. He is against any actual
punitive consequences because he knows that even if people are woken up and
told not to sleep at the space, they can just do so again the next night
(or just later that same morning).

Hey, if the majority of Noisebridge members said they were fine with people
sleeping at the space, I would back down on my stance. Whereas Kevin will
barge in on a meeting an hour late and then get his way.

The thing that gets me is that he doesn't even have to publicly defend his
unpopular view in order to get his way. (Note that he didn't mention
sleeping at all in his email on this thread, even though that's the
elephant in the room.) All he has to do is keep saying "there needs to more
discussion" week after week until the issue fades into the background once

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Kevin Schiesser <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:

> Brandon Edens:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The consensus of Noisebridge is that we have some house rules. You can
> read
> > about them here...
> >
> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/rules/house-rules.md
> >
> > Enjoy!
> > Brandon
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> I barged into the open meeting an hour late tonight and rejected the
> civility of passing this proposal, given I had aired unaddressed
> concerns. Discussion on the proposal was reopened, hence Noisebridge has
> not come to consensus on 'house rules'.
> I will be preparing an alternative draft. If anyone wants to
> collaborate, contact me via email or let's work though github.
> Generally, I favor 'community agreements'. I oppose punitive measures,
> and do not believe punitive measure will positively transform Noisebridge.
> If agreements are to be codified, we should start with the most
> abundantly clear agreements... We agree not to attempt to repair the
> elevator, not to go on the roof (unless maintenancing an antenna), not
> to go in the basement, not to go on the fire escape, not to live at
> Noisebridge. We also agree that projects kept on the hacker shelves in
> the SW corner of the space or kept in personal lockers belong to
> participants in the community and are not for general purpose hacking.
> <Add your own agreement>.
> -Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140319/a8b40bc9/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list