Meeting Notes 2020 06 02

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

Tiny URL to Doc:

Manual | Visitors | Participation | Community Standards | Channels | Operations | Edit

Participation | Excellence | Do-ocracy | Consensus | Joining | Meetings | Events | Edit

Meetings | Template | Archive | Current Consensus Items | Consensus History | Edit

These are the notes from the The XXXth Meeting of Noisebridge.

help take notes at -

video meeting on zoom at -

  • Note-taker: FIXME YOUR NAME HERE
  • Pre-Meeting Moderator: FIXME YOUR NAME HERE

Meeting Summary[edit]

FILL OUT AT END OF MEETING AND SEND TO MAILING LIST One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary. TLDR what happened at the meeting:

  • Announcements:
  • Finances:
  • New philanthropists:
  • New members:
  • Consensus Items:
  • Discussion Items:



Our One Rule is to Be Excellent to Each Other.

(What does that mean? How does the Anti-Harassment Policy fit into this? Are we SURE we know what being Excellent is? This is an important and fundamental conversation at Noisebridge, so let's give it like 120 seconds.)

Excellence is about caring for yourself, others, the space, and the community, it is about calling out when you see something wrong, and being available to help others. Being excellent can be doing things like taking out the trash, fixing a broken machine, cleaning up one of the areas, etc. As long as you follow the one rule, you will be welcome at noisebridge. We also have a Strict antiharassment policy, so if you are making people feel harassed through your actions, you will be asked to leave.


Everyone at Noisebridge is a participant at Noisebridge.

(What does that mean? How do you get a door key? Access to Slack, Discuss, etc?) There are many ways to participate at noisebridge, this includes taking a class, teaching a class, giving a presentation, using our equipment, etc. You can also do just about any project since we run on do-ocracy. But if you think that the action or project might disturb others, please go through small c consensus and ask the community before you take any actions. Once you come by for a bit and gain some trust from the community, you can ask for a 30 day access token which will get you in the noisebridge door from 10am to 11pm for 30 days (then it then needs to be renewed). You can also participate digitally through our different online systems- noisebridge slack noisebridge discuss noisebridge wiki noisebridge meetup

Philanthropist definition[edit]

A Philanthropist at Noisebridge has earned enough trust from the community to open and close the space.

(What does that mean? What do we expect from Philanthropists? How do you become one? etc)

Once you come by for a while and have a lot of trust from the community, people might start asking if you want to become a philanthropist (you can also apply right away if you think the benefits are worth it). A philathropist is the next trust level after daytime access (30 day token) usually in escalating participation. You get 24/7 access during non plague times, pay some money (40 to 80 dollars amonth), you must know how to open and close the space, give tours, and introduce new people to the space. We want you to be able to help more people be able to access the space, and be excellent! To apply you get a big M Member to sponsor you, then you fill out a Plilanthropy pledge and read all the associated materials, then you come to a tuesday meeting to submit the application. During that meeting you will be questioned for a bit, and then if no one objectas to you being a philanthropist, you will become one.

Membership Definition[edit]

Membership in Noisebridge entails community Trust in Consensus.

(What does that mean? What do we expect from Members? How do you become a Member? etc)

Big M Members are different from just being a member of the community, this is the highest trust level of the noisebridge community, it means that everyone in the community trusts that you would make good decisions about how noisebridge can move forward. This is an annoying bureocratic level of trust, as the only theoretical benefit is that you get to block big C concensus items, and vote on who we place on our board. To become one, you need to go through a four week process, where you fill out a membership form sponsored by two big M members. You bring it to a tuesday meeting where it is submitted, your membership will be discussed at that meeting, then at the next tuesday meeting your membership is discussed again and if it gets to concensus, you will be asked to leave the room while the members present decide if they want to block you or not, if no Member blocks your membership application you become a Member. For the next two weeks any big M member can retroactivly block your membership for any reason. If you get blocked figure out why, fix the issue and then reapply at a later time.

Guilds Definition[edit]

Guilds are how groups at noisebridge organize.

(What is a guild? How do you join one? etc)

Guilds are groups at noisebridge that rally around a common interest. Any group can create a guild by writing a Charter AND maintaining the group according to the metaguild guidelines:


Consensus is how the Noisebridge Membership may change how Noisebridge works.

(How does Consensus work? What types of things are good for formal Consensus? What is small-c consensus? What is a "block"?)

concensus is the process by which things that can't be done through basic do-ocracy (things that affect others in the space.) It has two flavors, small c and big C. Small c concensus is the process where things that might cause slight issues in the space (events, big projects, moving rooms, etc), you just talk with the community before doing things. Big C concensus is the process by which action are taken at noisebridge that are too big, too expensive, or too critical to be done by small c concensus. These are things like Moving, spending a lot of money, or doing legal bureucratic garbage. This is a two week+ process where an item is propsed one week (if possible you should already have the item posted in draft concensus items, and the binder). At that meeting it will be discussed for a while, then the next week it will be discussed again, and if people feel confident, it will be brought up for concencus, and if no big M member blocks the consensus item it passes and becomes a Consensed item.

Main Meeting[edit]


A/S/L?!?!?! Ryan (pyconaut)- exploring VR

Lxpk - Games & VR guilds

Carl - flaschen taschen hacker who also went to UCSC

Robert,he,him,cool cat,”meow”, (text only - haz project.) Circuit Hacking Monday++

Talmor- EE, want to learn the creative side of tech, went to UCSC, ham radio (callsign redacted for securitay)

Ⅹ - yes (W6PW Sutro Tower Repeater)

Tyler - he/him - developer - hacker - money laundering for noisebridge

Short announcements and events[edit]

60-second description per item in bulletpoint. Circuit Hacking Monday !!! We will be learning about getting Lit with Tinker Cad, and Beginning Electronics schematics(like what an LED, and Resistor look like in schematic form.) More advanced Electronics will be taught on a different day by: @ZAAA pls add.

5MoF 3rd Thursday of the month (on Zoom / jitsi) [Insert theme]

Za: Hardware Gang is open to anyone of any expertise. I’m teaching a hardware class (going to try to teach a series), email me if you want to attend those. Intermediate level to start, learning EagleCAD. I have the NB Othermill, going to learn how to mill PCBs. Robert and I have ideas about using them in CHM. I want to be able to mill PCB kits at NB!

pyconaut: We didn’t actually participate in the virtual Maker Faire this year. But they would like to write about our upcoming move. They are looking for electronics and hardware classes for their online summer camp for youth. They’re trying to find more content to share with the community more consistently.

New Philanthropists[edit]


New Members[edit]


Financial Report[edit]

Anarchist societies under a capitalist state need money to survive and thrive, yo.

  • Funds in bank: 213k cash

100k crypto 313k total Still slowly selling off crypto.

Fundraising Update[edit]

How's it all going

GuildMaster's Report[edit]

What is the current state of structural organization at Noisebridge?

  • What guilds are active? (Read the active guilds from Guilds wiki page)
    • (For each guild mentioned, ask if guild rep is present for a brief status update)
  • Would you like to join or start a guild? Checkout our guidelines or contact MetaGuild for help.

VR Guild - Virtual NB is up. If you want to try it, let lxpk or Pyconaut know! 3D model for 272 Capp is in the works.

Hardware Gang - The newest “guild”!


Proposals from last week [edit]

(Add any items which are consensed upon or someone has raised a principle objection for to the Consensus Items History page.)

Date First Discussed Proposed By Informal Title Summary Author of this Record
26 May 2020 (informally discussed meetings prior) ZAAA Closing Noisebridge during the COVID-19 Pandemic I am submitting the formalized closure of Noisebridge during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the current COVID-19 pandemic.
With 98,980 cases and 3,884 deaths in California as of this writing, it is essential that Noisebridge stay closed in order not to further spread this virus in our communities.
SF's cases are still surging upward and the Mission neighborhood is tied for the highest area for positive cases.

With the exceptions of:

1. Consensed temporary use only to make PPE / life-saving medical equipment (following the safety orders outlined by the Governer:
2. Consensed moving to the new space (272 Capp Street) for Noisebridge's survival
3. Emptying out personal belongings from the space (1 person at a time)

I propose the physical location of Noisebridge (2169 Mission St.) be physically closed for all other functions. I support us to remain open virtually with classes, meetings, and other events happening online.

Za: I wrote this, not as a detailed enforcement policy, but because I’d only heard about NB virtual meetings 3 weeks ago. And I was under the impression NB was already closed, but people were saying otherwise. It’s actually dangerous (for NB to be open) and has far-reaching consequences. The Mission district is being hit really hard, and people are dying. I think a lot of people are already in agreement with this, but it’s still vague until we have a consensus around it.

Pyconaut: After the first meeting following the SIP order, I disabled Earl and changed the locks so that only 10 people could get into the space. They were trustworthy people who would check on the space. We decided to see what actions NB could take to be of service to the community (making PPE, Internet use by first-responders, …). The only action that happened was printing PPE for UCSF, which increased the number of people who check on the space from 1 person per day to 2 people (to check on the 3D printers printing the PPE). Since we’ve finished that action, there should be no projects using NB right now. Hydroponics was supposedly moved to CryptoCastle, but apparently some of it has moved back to NB. NB should be more acutely, clearly closed. Consensing on this would help show that we’re complying with city and state ordinances.

Bfb: Thanks Za, for bottom-lining this. Have you taken a look at the Keeping Watch wiki? Do you think the things listed in Keeping Watch would be acceptable to add to the list of exceptions to keeping the space closed? Is Keeping Watch still happening?

Za: Not ideal to have one person in the space, but I could see that working. I wonder if there’s a way to put a wifi sensor on the front gate so we’ll know if anyone’s coming/going.

Pyconaut: If you look at the doorbell system, there are only 5 or less people using the system every day. It’s gone down since the PPE project ended. It would be cool to have a laser trip-wire type of thing.

Za: I want for us to agree on closing the space, then we can work out the details later.

Tyler: I agree with having a consensus item on this. The people in the space don’t come to the meetings. Writing wikis about proper space cleaning would be a waste of time. Unless you bolt up NB, they’re going to ignore anything written online.

Pyconaut: It’s going to be different to say that NB is closed vs actually having NB impossible to enter. I think we’re pretty close to following the ordinance, since it says businesses that have things that need to be checked on can do so. But we currently have too many people in the space. I think it would be fine to go through these consensus items, even if only in words, and then take actions on the consensus items. So we NB will be in a more controlled closure.

Tyler: One comment on the consensus item: I would redraft the language to say “in shelter-in-place” vs “Stage 1/Stage 2”. More like, we’ll comply with the legally stated times. That we’ll only operate for essential activities.

Za: I actually chose Stage 1/Stage 2 since they’re actual words from the governor.

Tyler: Sorry, I withdraw my complaint. I read that as “wave 1/wave 2”. You’re right, those are defined terms.

Bfb: Is anyone from Keeping Watch here in the meeting?

Tyler: I have a pair of keys, but I’m not frequently at the space. I’m in communication with people who go to the space, I don’t think anyone’s keeping watch or taking actual shifts.

Bfb: I was confused about the Stage 1/Stage 2 since I was reading the SF document. I think would be helpful to have the California one.


Pyconaut: what do people think of the current wording

Bfb: I agree with the proposal to keep it vague. I think we should give it another week to talk about this.

Tyler: I second that, since there are few people here today.

X: I think it would be good to come out of this meeting with small-c consensus.

Pyconaut: Like people are saying in the chat, we should talk to the other people who have been in the space. Creating a formal process in checking the space..

Za: I see an ask for a definitive version of this, but also I see people saying they like it vague. I think consensus items should be solid. It’s unusual that we’re not having this meeting in the space, which is how people would normally find out about these items. I’ve been posting about these on Discuss online, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of visibility. .. It’s strange that we’re saying we don’t have enough people here. The people not here have chosen not to speak. We’ve been talking about this for a while.

Bfb: The first exception, to make PPE, does that mean any PPE projects going forward need to be Consensed on? Or that any project can go ahead and use the space?

Za: My concern is we find people starting to sleep in the space or something.. And they say they are making ppe, we should probably make it small c concensus

Bfb: I don’t have strong opinon either way. Just that we should make it more clear in the wording. My other question: would this apply to our lease at 272 Capp? I would keep it separate, but we should all have the same understanding of it before consensing.

Bfb: The 272 Capp lease says we start 30 days after the end of SIP. ….

Za: That’s news to me. I was under the impression that we would start moving right away.

Tyler: We will start moving right away. Access is open after we pay 1st month’s rent and deposit.

Za: I tried to make this consensus item as modest as possible, so we can get it passed. Notice it also says it applies to 2169 Mission, and not 272 Capp. I just want something fast that says we’re trying.

Tyler: I think it wasn’t passed as a consensus item at first because we were following a legal requirement…..

X: I’ll add in notes, just saying it would be best to say will start preparing to move when we sign the lease, and will develop a more specific plan with the community before actually starting to move.

Pyconaut: What do people want to change about this item so it’s easier to pass next week?

Gabriel: If there’s a concern about ppl in the space being unaware about this consensus item, could we have Mary announce it?

Tyler: The item is actually written on the whiteboard in the space.

Pyconaut: Is Mary actually working?

Tyler: No. I feel like Mary was potentially purposely put out of commission...

James: I get why this is important, but I’m not sure what we want to resolve here. Is it a proclamation? It seems like nothing is going to stop people from going to the space.

Za: I haven’t gotten a clear answer about whether the space is closed in the past 3 meetings. NB operates best when there are things in clear writing. It’s not the be-all-end-all about people not being in the space. I’m concerned NB will be a name in contact tracing. I think we have an ethical responsibility to try to close the space. We lead by example (we’re a role model for other hackerspaces), so taking this health crisis seriously makes us look better as space. We can also set an example beyond what the law says. NB is an ideal breeding ground for COVID. I hope we can leave this meeting with small-c consensus on this.

Tim: We do have a paper trail. Our Twitter says we’re closed. People weren’t that for closing the space until I and Alice advised us to close. It’s not cool that we’re not truly closed in the way we said were. We’re not an essential infrastructure.

Bfb: Unlike the federal gov’t, we don’t run on Twitter decrees. I agree with Za that having a big-C Consensus would be good.

Pyconaut: We did a formal small-c consensus to close the space. It doesn’t seem like it worked to the extent that we wanted. So it makes sense to have a big-c consensus on closing.

X: To reiterate, NB is closed, that has been discussed. We’re working on clarifying the edge cases, making it known to the community. I would like to see consensus for ultimate clarity moving forward.

Robert: So the space is not being used as much for PPE as I would like to see. And I believe with the protests that we will see another such I agree that we should have a plan in place and make it very clear + Communication that NB is closed. OVER.

Pyconaut: The protests are another reason to close NB, in case people try to break in. If anyone was in NB past the curfew, that would be very much illegal.

Za: Can we move on to the next consensus item? :)

Gabriel: Someone asked about how this is related to PPE creation. Did we clarify how this interacts with future PPE projects?

Za: It already allows future PPE projects and doesn’t change that.

Gabriel: What happened to the last consensus item about that PPE project?

Pyconaut: They didn’t have enough info for us (?).

Za: To clarify - there was formal block on the big-C Consensus last week.

Tim: I did block it. The only condition was about the insurance.

Tyler: I read the insurance. It’s over 200 pages long.

Za: It’s not on the consensus item wiki page.

Pyconaut: It was there last week but was removed.

Tyler: To clarify - it’s not specific. Our insurance policy names things for which we are covered, including kidnappings and terrorism. It does specify that viral and biological events are NOT covered. If your place is dirty and there’s mold and people get sick, that’s not covered by the insurance. A COVID-19 outbreak would not be covered.

Pyconaut: Then we might need to modify the language to say that we cannot do PPE since our insurance doesn’t cover us.

Tyler: That means NB is not covered in any scenario. Anything that NB does that operates outside of best safe practices (what the city permits), and there’s an outbreak and someone gets sick or dies, decides to sue NB, our insurance would not cover it.

Tim: It could be their family, their insurer, the community, not just them.

Tyler: It would be a hard lawsuit. - (would you want to fight it? -Tim)

Za: According to the writing as it is right now, if there’s no consensus to allow PPE, it’s not allowed. If there is consensus, then it is allowed.

Pyconaut: All right, let’s move this item to next week.

Za: Does anyone have a hard block on this? Do we all agree?

Everyone in current meeting supports closure 16 people

And there were no blocks

Date First Discussed Proposed By Informal Title Summary Author of this Record
26 May 2020 (informally discussed meetings prior) ZAAA Limiting people at Noisebridge during the COVID-19 Pandemic I am submitting for consensus for limiting the number of people at Noisebridge during the Pandemic to no more than four (4) people in the space at any given time.

I think we should err on the side of caution and work to be safe, using the safety orders outlined by the Governer: as a bare minimum starting point.

Note, that this order recommends "physical distancing to the maximum extent possible."

Za: This has come up a couple of times the past few weeks. I’m trying to find ways for us to stay safe. I support making PPE, but I engaged some people about doing it safely. I wasn’t able to get any clear answer about how many people are allowed in the space. I think it would be beneficial to limit the contact and take some precautions. I chose 4 people because I personally wanted 2 people, and I know some people wanted it to be 6. So I chose the middle ground. The poor ventilation, the location on Mission St, up a staircase near a bus line,...

Pyconaut: I really think we need this type of thing in place, especially during our upcoming move. I’m trying to write up a plan of action for how we’re going to move NB. Right now it hinges on how many people can be moving NB at once. If that’s 4 people, we have to decide how to plan more carefully. We’re going to start moving once we sign the lease. Moving is legal, but we also want to follow the ordinance as best we can. Moving is one of the most contact-intensive things people can do besides sports.

Za: Tyler (in the chat) said he would absolutely block this.

Pyconaut: It’s hard to say why he thinks this. I think this will also take till next week to decide on. We need to figure out a good number of people.

Gabriel: I missed the beginning, but was there an exception about moving in the last consensus item?

Za: Yes, there are exceptions.

Gabriel: Given that our lease doesn’t start until after SIP is over, I’m wondering if we should have that exception. Especially since, like Ryan mentioned, it’s very high-contact.

Bfb: Tyler clarified this earlier. (look above)

X: Sound isn’t working here if someone want’s to translate txt to speech

X: pre-pared thoughts, ‘X’, the-x is silent, and now it’s legit, as ………

X: I can validate there is a block by a member in good standing, block by proxy so say I

From chat: 2. I updated the discussion section with some topics that should be addressed If anyone can provide context on that

X: my point is to there being a 0 point to start from and that I personally and not comfortable being in the space with any number of people. I will go back to the space at sometime and am seeing some pressing needs to be in the space sooner then later.

X: I think it would be great to create some kind of Consensus around how we can safely use the space once we have found a way to make the space maintainable in a safe way.

F: It’s like what James said, people won’t care. They’ll still go to the space and duplicate keys. It comes down to, do we have a group of people we trust to keep the keys to themselves? I don’t feel comfortable going to NB and don’t feel comfortable moving right now. I totally agree with Za.

Za: I appreciate that. I wrote these consensus items not with enforcement in mind, since that can be figured out later. I know they’re kind of connected, but I’m trying to keep them separate since enforcement is very difficult at NB (like with people sleeping in the space). If we can come together as a community and have it in writing…

F: But we don’t really have a community. If we were all here, we could decide to kick people out. It should totally be in writing.

X via Chat: We are on the bounds of the limits of consensus, it's up to all of our individual excellence to take interest in doing it all better, or figure out how to support those that are You don't need our or anyones approval to be excellent If in doubt ask someone else, if still in doubt keep asking

Date First Discussed Proposed By Informal Title Summary Author of this Record
26 May 2019 kinnard Wait to Consense on staying or moving Noisebridge should wait to consense on moving or not moving until after the community has had a chance to coalesce and have a meeting at Noisebridge in the interest of communal integrity and excellent process one way or the other.

The current situation is one of extreme entropy not business as usual. We are living through arguably the greatest crisis in living memory. This might be the most important decision in Noisebridge’s history, not one to be taken hastily. Several community members have voiced concerns about communication failures around Noisebridge’s real estate process thought the quarantine. The meeting format has changed. The meeting time changed. And we are not able to have normal Noisebridge meetings at Noisebridge. The board member primarily responsible for relations with the current landlord recently resigned. Noisebridge has not sufficiently explored options at 2169 Mission St. given the drastically changed circumstances on planet and in the SF Real Estate market. The situation improves to Noisebridge’s advantage if Noisebridge waits. The community really wants to stay in its home but sees this as an unattainable ideal.


LXPK: I block it, in that this item is not applicable to our current situation ZAAA: I second this. Pyconaut: I block as well

Proposals for next week [edit]

(Add any new items for consensus to the Current Consensus Items page.)


Discussion Item 1[edit]

Tyler: Current state of lease process. We are adding a couple additional notes to the lease and sending back to the landlord Clarifying early access (between signing and when rent period starts) Sprinkler certifications in place before move-in Clarify description of Noisebridge activities

Bfb: Thanks! When finalized, would you please add an attachment to the wiki/discuss?

Discussion Item 2[edit]

Tyler: I feel like we should more strongly consider ryans suggestion of a Laser Tripwire. Hear me out. Super lowkey surveillance. Get a rough idea of the number of people in the space. If you are opposed you can just step over the laser. Boom. No NSA.

X: Motion sensor zones and laser fence at gate, with opt-out, which requires pressing a button every n minutes, so it suffices someone is present and responding in the space.

X: There is a thing for what pyconaut is saying its called GridEye and specifically allows some level of anonymity, it’s somewhat like what Za is saying with a blurry camera

Key point: don’t wanna set a bad precedent for surveillance in the space.

Ryan: It’s hard to figure out what’s the difference between “surveillance” and “access tracking”?

Thermal imaging is another possibility, but seems unpopular.

Motion detection is binary, “is there someone there or isn’t there?”

Is this just for the covid sitch or what?

Ryan: It could be for many purposes…

Discussion Item 3[edit]

Tyler: We never get to discussion items anymore and it makes me sad {Robert: we could make an item for that. Efficiency in meetings?}

Discussion Item 4[edit]

Moving action

What time(s) would people be interested in joining a virtual daytime moving action meeting? Za: i think thats a Q for Discuss.

Another thought: I would love it if someone would livestream the move stuff as it happens. Maybe I could help remotely, kinda direct things, since I can’t be there physically for the move. Pyconaut: People knew I’d get angry at them doing stuff, then did it anyway… most recently: I brought in a ton of gear from a GDC booth, over the past year, every single item was thrown away, including stuff the day I brought it in.. Za: We all have stories like this, let’s try to prevent it in the future!

Discussion Item 5[edit]

The new website is lacking search features, important info, etc. Pyconaut: That front page is going down soon. We’ve been using it for like a year. Check Discuss.

Discussion Item 6[edit]

Try to get ableist language out of the noisebridge lexicon and to teach people about ableism, in the same way that we have been trying to improve diversity. We have been failing a big part of the community. And more of our community needs to be aware.

Discussion Item 7[edit]

Fix wiki more!

Fix front wiki page so that things like the consensus items and meeting notes are easier to find.

Discussion Item 8[edit]

Things happening online

How do we respect anonymity while lowering lurkers This can be hard in zoom meetings and jitsi meetings How do we keep out bots

F: The meeting is open though? What good does that do us? Pyco: It is easier to kick people out of things digitally than out of a physical place. I do think its kind of hard since people can use whatever names they want. On the video and audio side: its hard to ask ppl to all be using their cams and mics. Za: to clarify: I’m talking about folks who don’t contribute to ANYTHING. 100% no involvement. Who are these “people”? No proof of humanity... R: can we assume they are a bot? Mark: Can we do a roll call at the beginning to remove non-responsive lurkers? Za: I think that’s great. F: Yea. Pyco: Stuff like that could work. At the beginning of the meeting, we can just check in and see if people respond in chat or however. R: If the meeting host can go down the names and say hello? (& boot anyone not resp/ ) Dan: chat is easier for bots, plz.

End of meeting lullaby Night.

End of Meeting[edit]

Stack: Robert(super random)