[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules
bfb at riseup.net
Wed Mar 19 18:31:42 UTC 2014
On March 19, 2014 11:07:24 AM PDT, Jessica Ross <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why can't you guys rebut this with "It's against the terms of the
> lease and
> could get us evicted"?
> It's BS that you're even still debating this!
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
> > Kevin is against banning sleeping at the space because he and his
> > 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
> > 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
> > (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
> > more.
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Kevin Schiesser <bfb at riseup.net>
> >> Brandon Edens:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > The consensus of Noisebridge is that we have some house rules.
> You can
> >> read
> >> > about them here...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> 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
> >> and do not believe punitive measure will positively transform
> >> If agreements are to be codified, we should start with the most
> >> abundantly clear agreements... We agree not to attempt to repair
> >> elevator, not to go on the roof (unless maintenancing an antenna),
> >> 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
> >> the SW corner of the space or kept in personal lockers belong to
> >> participants in the community and are not for general purpose
> >> <Add your own agreement>.
> >> -Kevin
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> Jessica R. Ross
> jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
I'm very open to collaborating on a revised Draft of this document. Please read the meeting notes or try to understand what I wrote before jumping in with critique. Polarization, accusation, and hyperbole are not effective.
At every prior meeting I said that I had concerns with the house rules proposal. Often, the agenda was too full of bannings to have substantive discussion of my concerns. I was shocked to arrive late and hear consensus was reached without having had opportunity for discussion. The group agreed I was previously misunderstood, the proposal is not urgent, and that more discussion is needed.
Hence more discussion and reaching out to the community.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss