[Noisebridge-discuss] why i am complaining
adrian.chadd at gmail.com
Thu May 8 19:45:17 UTC 2014
On 8 May 2014 12:34, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> when i was participating in the discussions around associate membership, a
> lot of people were getting involved and choosing to be part of noisebridge
> through associate membership. they were coming to meetings and learning
> about cooperation and accountability.
Sweet. And that's still going on whenever I turn up to the space, once
or twice a week.
> this is the only way a project as big as noisebridge can succeed. There's
> no way any one person can, for example, enforce agreed-upon community
> standards onto the volumes of people who come through the door every day.
> and the people who come through the door are heavily influenced by the word
> on the street, which is based on our collective resolve to uphold the
> culture that we agree on. If we don't do that, other culture takes over.
Agreed. But see below.
> When I say X is broken, such as the shelves being a mess, i am not
> suggesting that I couldn't fix it. I am pointing out that a result of our
> social policies is that normal maintenance by people who care is being
> outstripped by entropy from people who don't care.
> Look at cause and effect. People abuse the space because there are no
> quantities of people, present at noisebridge, who feel that they have
> agreed-upon values of excellence to uphold. If someone is asleep at the
> space and I try to wake them up, other people will come up and argue with me
> that it is not prohibited so i should fuck off.
And see above.
If what's said in public is a lot of "it's broken, look how broken it
is", then you're contributing to the word on the street. Which is
likely going to have the flow-on effect that you've described. It's
going to become (well, continue) to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That's the cycle that needs to be broken.
> In a healthy noisebridge, a person who was trashing the shelves or
> habitating in the space would be confronted by three or more people who
> agreed on our standards, and could easily convince the person to stop. But
> this is only possible if Noisebridgers can agree on what our standards are.
> This list is one way for people to try to agree on such things.
The way that you and Jonny listed things isn't .. positive enough? I'm
not sure. Talk is cool, but at some point, actions are needed. You've
done this before. Just come back and do it again. I dare you. We have
> It sounds like you are suggesting that if something can only be achieved
> with the entire community's participation, then it should not be bothered
Nope. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying "shit is hard, most people are
apathetic, just get a group of awesome people together and do awesome,
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss