[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 19:06:16 UTC 2014


Thanks.  You could probably just dial back a lot of the CWG stuff and
have a more workable document. We can always add those things back to
the document as we discover what the CWG is capable of.

I like the approach towards considering individual situations.  I'm a
fan of respecting human beings as human beings, not treating them as
automatons.

--Naomi


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Gregory Dillon
<gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Naomi, you are right.    good point.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As I wrote on a pull request of yours, Greg (a comment which I can no
>> longer locate to link to):
>>
>> I'm concerned that these changes presume quite a lot about the
>> capacities and abilities of the CWG even before it has had a chance to
>> ramp up.
>>
>> I do *like* what you've written, but it's premature to legislate a
>> flow of problems into the CWG before it's even been born.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> > On March 24, 2014 11:21:39 AM PDT, Gregory Dillon
>> > <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I met to collaborate with Kevin regarding the house rules proposal.
>> >> We
>> >> had a full and frank conversation, and  found significant agreement in
>> >> purposes and aspirations.
>> >>
>> >> As part of that process, I have created my draft of a document, which
>> >> I
>> >> prefer to call fair usage policy.   It is now on the github repository
>> >> as apull
>> >>
>> >> request.<https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/24/files?short_path=72650ec#diff-72650ec3320e10419ed3f724d40e4a68>
>> >>
>> >> I hope that we can keep this conversation continuing and productive.
>> >> I
>> >> don't know of any deadline, but I think it would be excellent if Kevin
>> >> could also provide his draft of house rules with enough time for
>> >> people to
>> >> review before the Tuesday meeting.
>> >>
>> >> Bests
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:27 AM, immonad <immonad at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Did anyone else get a good laugh,  that  during the last two weekly
>> >> > meetings at least one person appeared  to be sleeping just a few
>> >> feet away.
>> >> > Each had a smirky smile as they appeared to awaken from  their naps.
>> >>  These
>> >> > guys practically  lives at NB and are against any talk against using
>> >> it as
>> >> > such. One of them (newest member) was also against the action of
>> >> asking
>> >> > people to leave for drugs.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -------- Original message --------
>> >> > From: Al Sweigart
>> >> > Date:03/23/2014 5:26 PM (GMT-08:00)
>> >> > To: Dan Cote
>> >> > Cc: Jessica Ross ,noisebridge-discuss
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge House Rules
>> >> >
>> >> > "Community standards" is just doublespeak for "rules that are
>> >> optional".
>> >> > This is generally espoused by the crowd that likes sleeping
>> >> overnight at
>> >> > Noisebridge, because it lets them continue sleeping overnight at
>> >> > Noisebridge.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Dan Cote
>> >> <terminationshok at gmail.com>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's a long standing property of Noisebridge that we favor
>> >> individual
>> >> >> freedom over codified policies. I know that we are experiencing an
>> >> identity
>> >> >> crisis at the moment, and we are rethinking how we do things, which
>> >> is
>> >> >> good. All of the line items look fine to me, but their name and
>> >> tone is
>> >> >> authoritarian. I would not support this in it's current form and
>> >> >> respectfully ask that it be reworked before being brought for
>> >> consensus
>> >> >> again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We have and have had community standards that are very similar to
>> >> these,
>> >> >> and my suggestion would be that we remove "house rules" and we
>> >> clean up and
>> >> >> revise "community standards."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What we need is not official sounding rules, but consistent and
>> >> >> compassionate reinforcement of our community standards. I would and
>> >> do
>> >> >> support anyone who asks someone to leave based on the behavior
>> >> patterns
>> >> >> listed on either list.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Community_standards
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Gregory Dillon
>> >> <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Keving   I'd like to come to a good fair and workable solution.
>> >> I'm
>> >> >>> somewhat reticent  because I'm concerned that collaborating will
>> >> slide into
>> >> >>> a process that is more about delaying than implementing a
>> >> solution.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But please contact me off-list and let's talk.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On March 19, 2014 12:19:44 PM PDT, Gregory Dillon <
>> >> >>>> gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> > Kevin,
>> >> >>>> > No one said Folsom prison for naptime.
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >  Are you - or are you not, going to include prohibiting
>> >> sleeping at
>> >> >>>> > Noisebridge in your version of the house rules.?
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > > On March 19, 2014 11:45:24 AM PDT, Gregory Dillon
>> >> >>>> > <gregorydillon at gmail.com>
>> >> >>>> > > wrote:
>> >> >>>> > > > Tthe meeting notes say
>> >> >>>> > > >  Kevin is willing to accept prohibiting sleeping at
>> >> Noisebridge,
>> >> >>>> > > > - Will that be part of your proposal?
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > 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>
>> >> >>>> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> >>>> > > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > > > 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
>> >> >>>> > > > > > > more.
>> >> >>>> > > > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > > > 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
>> >> >>>> > > > > > >>
>> >> >>>> > > > > > >>
>> >> >>>> > > > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>> > > > > > > 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.
>> >> >>>> > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > For context...
>> >> >>>> > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > 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.
>> >> >>>> > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>> > > > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >> >>>> > > > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >> >>>> > > > >
>> >> >>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >> >>>> > > > >
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > >
>> >> >>>> > > > --
>> >> >>>> > > > Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>> >> >>>> > >
>> >> >>>> > > I'm ideologically opposed to criminalizing sleep at
>> >> Noisebride. Many
>> >> >>>> > > organizations understand the benefits of rest, and allow
>> >> sleep to
>> >> >>>> > occur
>> >> >>>> > > alongside work/hacking/creating.
>> >> >>>> > >
>> >> >>>> > > I recognize Noisebridge has problems Many have identified
>> >> sleep as
>> >> >>>> > one. I
>> >> >>>> > > maintain its a symptom and not a root problem. However, I'm
>> >> open to
>> >> >>>> > > experiments. We tried HackerStackers... If folks want to try
>> >> >>>> > prohibition, I
>> >> >>>> > > won't stand in the way.
>> >> >>>> > >
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> > --
>> >> >>>> > Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Greg,
>> >> >>>> Do you want to collaborate? Do you like the existing wording on
>> >> the
>> >> >>>> prohibition of sleep at Noisebridge?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Left to my own devices I would first codify existing agreements,
>> >> then
>> >> >>>> add new agreements. This pattern allows us to test additional
>> >> agreements
>> >> >>>> independently.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -Kevin
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Let's stay in touch.  Greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >
>> > Thanks Greg. That's great. I also enjoyed a spontaneous gathering of 4
>> > or 5 folks interested in this discussion on Wednesday night. Some notes were
>> > taken, and suggestions made. It would also be great if the notes make it to
>> > the mailing list or sub thread that I started as a result of that gathering.
>> >
>> > I'll write up my preferred language later tonight.
>> >
>> > -Kevin
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Let's stay in touch.  Greg



-- 
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