[Noisebridge-discuss] that's all folks
tdfischer at hackerbots.net
Tue May 13 21:21:59 UTC 2014
Might I suggest organizing a discussion about Noisebridge's vision and
identity sometime in the space?
The mailing list is really quite terrible for these kinds of things :)
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 13:50:19 Josh Juran wrote:
> On May 13, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I truly believe that the space began to seriously unravel when the
> >> community erected associate membership rules, access policies and
> >> bureaucratic harassment doctrines as a substitute for true excellence.>
> > Me too.
> I would have disagreed if instead of "when" you'd written "because".
> Associate membership, members' hours, and even the entry keypad were
> reactions to Noisebridge being occupied by people whose presence materially
> reduced its utility and subjectively but palpably detracted from its
> ambiance. I suspect that, if we had attempted no corrective action, the
> space would have begun to unravel in any case. I'm asserting that the
> access policies were not the cause of the unraveling, but an effect of it.
> I think our biggest fault lay in failing to respond promptly and decisively.
> Instead of unifying as a community to face an unprecedented threat, we
> lapsed into bickering and infighting. I don't see the disagreements as
> being interpersonal so much as between competing ideologies, e.g.
> lock-down-the-space pragmatism vs. locks-only-encourage-breakins idealism.
> Although passive-aggressive vigilante sabotage masquerading as do-ocracy
> didn't do us any favors.
> There's no going back. Noisebridge needs to say who and what it is now, in
> a way that communicates to the people who will be a part of it.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss