Meeting Notes 2020 06 23

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

There was a weekly meeting, these are the live notes, please update this page to conform to normal formatting and such... (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Date: 06-23-2020
  • Note-taker: Tiffany
  • Moderators: bfb

Meeting Summary[edit]

Detailed discussions about accessability relating to noisebridge, membership process and new members/philanthropist (one applicant Ⅹ, and two hypothetical at least). Details on closure of the space and additional securing there of.


TLDR what happened at the meeting:

  • Announcements: CLOSED
  • Finances: Solid, same same
  • New philanthropists: is that currently a thing?
  • New members: pending
  • Consensus Items: 4
  • Discussion Items: 3.5

Main Meeting[edit]


lxpk - game stuff, Simbridge is up and running

Mark - game stuff, currently working on the Guilds project (identifying and defining what the current status and goals are)

X - may or may not be a Member of NB, considering to reinstate Membership in good standing. Last one on the bridge, closed and locked on way out.

Rikke - long-time member, lurker

Devon - first time here, been around the space for a while, full-stack engineering, healthcare consulting & AI

Jade - long-time neurohacker, misses nature

Robert - hosts Circuit Hacking Monday

Dan - part-time memetic chiroproctologist ... and tool of big Consensus

Zach - hack hardware, been going to NB for long time

Gabriel - says sometimes he talks to much

Reily - joined late

Short announcements and events[edit]

60-second description per item in bulletpoint.

Zach: 1. I'm teaching a hardware class. We're in the 3rd week of it, but I can send materials if you want to get caught up. Learn EagleCAD to design PCBs.

2. There's a very expensive piece of NB equipment, the Othermill Pro (CNC mill). I spent a lot of time repairing it and a lot of time on the phone with the manufacturer. I seem to have gone over reimbursement limit (?). If anyone wants to donate $50 for parts that I paid for it, get in touch with me or Tyler.

bfb: Neurohacking group has been meeting online every Wed 8-10pm on Jitsi. Link is on Discuss and Slack. Reach out to me if you want to join. Neurohacking is looking neuro and machine learning...

lxpk: Is it still called Dream Team?

bfb: Yes!

lxpk: Does it overlap with Neurotech X?

bfb: Some overlap.

Mark: We seem to have somewhat decided that we're having Guild-related discussions every other Thursday. It's part of the Philosophy guild. Next meeting is next Thursday, July 2nd, 8pm PST.

via chat [20:02] X: Hey all left the space in the last hour, and was the last one out, shut it down and left the top/bottom locked. Also added a chain ring of [EXPERIMENTAL] trust on the newly re-installed inner glass doors.

X: Welcome all, I will be standing aside as to moderation, and lurking over dinner for a bit and then able to assist in stack or otherwise, and have a few discussion items, particular as stated above.

X: I'm putting it forward as a test of a suggested buddy/pairing procedure for anytime the space needs to be temporarily re-opened for minimum required activities. What I propose is trust groups with a minimum of 3, and any 2 of the 3 can then open the space.

New Philanthropists[edit]

New Members[edit]

<discussion about how a Member becomes not a Member>

Zach: I was told a few weeks ago that you don't stop being a Member if you don't stop paying dues.

lxpk: I was told once that I wasn't a Member anymore because I wasn't paying dues (because of accidental credit card issues).

X: Membership is still a 4 week reading process. (that is old news, now a 2 + 2)

lxpk: I sponsor X.

X: Ok, then 3 more weeks to go.

bfb: Can we go back and explain philanthropy and Membership?

lxpk: Philanthropy - need a Member to vouch for you, can be revoked if any Member disagrees with this. You pay a monthly donation (though can be negotiated with treasurer), you have 24hr access and responsibility to close the space.

Membership - can block the formal Consensus process. Takes 2 sponsors, wait 2 weeks of meetings, if there are no blocks you become a Member. 2 weeks after that, it's provisional, then you're a permanent Member. You can help with quorum and sponsor people to become philanthropists.

Gabriel: My understanding was that we weren't taking Membership applications remotely.

lxpk: We could discuss this since there are still 3 weeks till X's Membership could go through.

Gabriel: I was interested in moving from Philanthropist to Member.

bfb: We can add this as a discussion item.

Zach: I wanted to add: there are Members and then there are Members not in good standing. What do you do have access to if you're not in good standing?

bfb: Membership came about before access control, so my interpretation is that if a Member is not in good standing, they wouldn't be able to participate in Consensus fully (be able to block).

Zach: lxpk mentioned additional stuff like access keys.

lxpk: Yeah, I think only Members are allowed to grant 30-day access. So even if you weren't a Member in good standing you'd still be able to grant access.

X: Member can create the 30-day access token, and then a Philanthropist can renew.

Financial Report[edit]

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

  • Funds in bank: (6/23/2020)

₿/$: 307,040.25 total $ 232,668.70 cash ₿ 74,371.55 crypto 24.22% crypto / cash

TM: Getting close to the 20% threshhold initally set. Once reached we will put a hold on selling crypto and reassess quarterly based on new donations and crypto price fluctuations

Devon: Curious about philanthropy, so I was wondering about NB's Patreon. Are you able to waive Patreon fee (8%) as a non-profit?

X: I don't know, but I can ask Tyler. You can also donate by cash, wire transfer, Bitcoin, etc.

Devon: If you're already doing Paypal, you can set up automatic subscriptions. It could save hundreds of $ per month.

Zach: Money-saving thinking is good, always.

Wanted to post the financials for the equipment (copied from Discuss): $91.00 (already paid) + $148 = $239 which is a good bit over the initial discussion of $150.

I think that you need to get some additional people willing to contribute at this point.

Broken down like this: Replacement fund: $150.00

Less $90.99 paid. $59.01 remains. Remaining expenses: $147.74

$171.74 less $59.01 = $88.73 required Equipment fund matching 50/50 donations:

= $44.37 needs to be raised

<X donates the $50!>

Fundraising Update[edit]

How's it all going

GuildMaster's Report[edit]

What is the current state of structural organization at Noisebridge?

Mark: We had a meeting last week. We talked about how much we want to define things and how much leeway we want to give groups. We tried to grapple with what defines a guild, and there's no strong consensus on that yet. We talked about badges, more on that in the metaguild category on Discuss. How much overlap does this have with the Announcements?

Zach: My understanding was that we had a small-c consensus a few meetings ago to move big-C Consensus to the front of the meeting?

X: Consensus in 2014 was that meetings would start at 7pm, so if we did that we could do the intros and things and then have the bulk of the meeting start at 8pm.

  • 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.

lxpk: VR Noisebridge is under ... Overhauled the website, aesthetically. We would like feedback and suggestions on how to improve. Doesn't require any CSS knowledge. Want to use the wiki page over the current

Zach: Would like to organize with people to have a wiki update hacking day...

Mark: Let's move guild stuff to discussion, as well as meeting format.


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.)

Proposals for next week [edit]

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

Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Remote Accessibility After COVID-19 Summary Author of this Record
Discussed 6.23.20 User Zach Continuing Meeting Remote Accessibility Beyond COVID-19

It is without a doubt that Noisebridge has, under the throws of coronavirus, become more accessible to disabled people than it has ever been before. After years of hardship with a broken elevator, it has been a wonderful shift in these recent weeks to take part in meetings again via new remote options. As a wheelchair user and severely disabled member, I cannot always take buses to the space and I know other disabled members have similar challenges.

Let us move forward as a community and continue this improvement in accessibility. Let us not take steps or rolls backward after the physical space re-opens. We are learning the value of access as a community together, and all the good things that come with it.

This consensus proposal Is for:

1. Continuing video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge General Meetings (usually on Tuesdays), specifically for disabled people as a reasonable disability accommodation, as outlined by Title II and Title III of the American with Disabilities Act.

"'title III of the Act, which requires public accommodations to remove architectural barriers where such removal is "readily achievable," or to provide goods and services through alternative methods, where those methods are "readily achievable'"

"Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."


bfb: Any clarifying questions?

X: We have a consensed provision for this from 2013, that meetings will be audio-streamed. It's important for how we continue on in the new space. According to the 2013 consensus, it's up to the secretary to uphold this.

lxpk: I want to second what Zach said. In the past, people would call me when they wanted Consensus, so the virtual meetings have been nice. This improves the ability to partcipate in consensus.

Rikke: As from keeping meetings online, are there other things we can do?

Zach: Definitely, which is why I split the consensus items into separate items.

Mark: Given that we have this old consensus item and it was forgotten about, what steps can we take to make sure that doesn't happen again?

Zach: That's covered in the 3rd consensus item we'll go through today.

lxpk: We could have it in the meeting template.

Mark: Why do we have so many consensus items instead of just one?

Zach: It was fruitful to split things up like the past few items we did. Some parts can die while the rest moves forward.

lxpk: Procedurally, it's helpful to have a title of each consensus item. Introduce them all in the first item, so we don't have to say "oh the 4th one."

Zach: I'll read the titles: 1. Continuing remote accessibilty. 2. Continuing remote class accessibility. 3. Accessibility information and statement on the main website 4. Accessibility information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space

Zach: Thanks for bringing up the old consensus item. I think this one is very different though. The 2013 one says there will be streaming with encouragement of online engagement. But it's very different to just encourage vs actually have it available, to say we're committed to the accessibility.

X: I agree, we should implement what we already consensed and go farther. ... When it comes to consensus and the members are more actively involved in the conversation, I think it's important for them to physically be in the space. So we should work on the physical accessibility too.

Zach: Emphasis on this is disability access, so it doesn't change any other rules wrt security and safety. If it does come up (like having a closed meeting for safety/security), this doesn't go against that. This is about general rules of disability accessibility. ... I know there have been issues around remote proxy blocks in the past. Not trying to change any rules.

X: Please let me know how I can accomodate. There's a way for telepresence in the space...

Zach: That's great. I'm super happy about this, and being able to be at these meetings again.

bfb: Are there any blocks at this time?


Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Remote Accessibility After COVID-19 Summary Author of this Record
Discussed 6.23.20 User Zach Continuing Class Remote Accessibility Beyond COVID-19

It is without a doubt that Noisebridge has, under the throws of coronavirus, become more accessible to disabled people than it has ever been before. After years of hardship with a broken elevator, it has been a wonderful shift in these recent weeks to take part in meetings again via new remote options. As a wheelchair user and severely disabled member, I cannot always take buses to the space and I know other disabled members have similar challenges.

Let us move forward as a community and continue this improvement in accessibility. Let us not take steps or rolls backward after the physical space re-opens. We are learning the value of access as a community together, and all the good things that come with it.

This consensus proposal Is for:

1. Continuing video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge classes, presentations, and tools, specifically for disabled people as a reasonable disability accommodation, as outlined by Title II and Title III of the American with Disabilities Act.

"'title III of the Act, which requires public accommodations to remove architectural barriers where such removal is "readily achievable," or to provide goods and services through alternative methods, where those methods are "readily achievable'"

"Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."


Gabriel: Would this require all formally organized activities in NB to be streamed online with participation?

Zach: No. First of all, this is continuing. Second, it has to be requested by someone who wants it to be streamed. It's an option, the door's open.

X: Wanted to check in, wrt the new space, this is going to be a challenge for us because the first floor is accessible, but the second floor is not (stairs). Anything we do upstairs, we have to do downstairs for accessibilty. Do part of these proposals address this? We could have something upstairs connected to the downstairs. Those would be accessible within the space, but what about outside of the space...

Relay: I was trying to build something do-ocratically, like an intercom system. I was looking into a protocol called Matrix. Does NB have a domain we could use? So we could have communications within itself.

X: we've explored this on Unicorn it may already be implemented, and we have other domains available.

bfb: Let's not stray too deep into implementation right now.

lxpk: Those are cool ideas. However, I think the goal is to put an elevator and lift in. It's somewhere around $35k to have a proper elevator. It's my assumption that it'd be worthwhile to build an elevator, but we'll see. I see it as a goal, not as something we'll have overnight.

bfb: The intent of the consensus item, 1st floor & 2nd floor accessibility was brought up ...

Zach: Absolutely. Would love an elevator, hope it happens. Sad about how disabled people are left out a lot of times. If NB were a gov't entity, these would be required by law. It's the bare minimum, and I'm not even trying to emphasize implementation. I'm trying to get NB to incorporate what would be law in a fair country. It helps to talk about this too, as a community. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but to have it as a thing we're thinking about, that would be super cool. It would be cool to have access to a classroom on the second floor with a staircase.

Robert: I agree with Zach, in that it should be a goal that we move towards. I've done a lot of cycling and skating and busted my leg. Getting into the space is a pain. Like if you busted your leg and were trying to get to the space, how would you want to be treated?

bfb: Any blocks so far?

Mark: Should all these consensus items pass, can we combine them into one for easy record-keeping?

Zach: I vote strongly against that.

bfb: In the spirit of what Mark is asking, maybe we should compile them in the wiki.

lxpk: I'm actually updating the accessibility on the wiki right now. So it shouldn't be confusing to read.

Mark: I'm generally worried about info overload and presentation and searchability. Just preservation of notes so we don't get lost.

Zach: If we combine them, and then next week someone is not okay with part of it... Maybe combine them after they pass?

Mark: Yeah I'm just worried about not seeing one of them when we look back.

Zach: Makes sense.

Robert: If we were to combine it so it doesn't get lost, we could say for example 1A, 1B, 1C, etc were consensed together...

bfb: How we discuss and consense on each of the items can be different from how we discuss afterwards ...

Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Remote Accessibility After COVID-19 Summary Author of this Record
Discussed 6.23.20 User Zach Accessibility information and statement on the main website This consensus proposal Is for:

1. Providing disability access information on the main website ( in a clear and easy to access way.

This information should include:

a. Possible barriers and physical access information for the current physical space of Noisebridge

b. A point of contact for disabled people to ask questions specifically around disability and gaining access to Noisebridge (phone, email, etc. - more options the better).

c. Information on how to request disability accommodations to attend.

d. A statement on Noisebridge's commitment to excellence via inclusion of people with disabilities


Mark: Should we establish some sort of position, like an accessibility liason? If so, how do we ensure it survives?

lxpk: Zach took it upon himself to update our a11y info on our wiki. So I'm reformatting it as maintainers, me, Zach, and any others who want to help.

Relay: Do we have any emails that all Members access? Maybe the guild could set one up.

Robert: Accessibility for CHM is really important because I've had people from all across the country. Those that cannot get out, and those who can't get out because of a family member... Being a standard of open-source teaching of the world, that would be good.

Gabriel: No objections. I wonder if the website stuff could be small-c consensus or do-ocratically done.

Mark: 1. I also echo Gabriel's point. I understand big-C Consensus items to be about making clear NB's position on these things, and making clear action items.

2. Wrt my thoughts about who is that point of contact, my worry is that we just make a bunch of guilds and the people get spread thin. If we start an a11y guild, the people who start it might get too busy/stressed/burnt out to do their a11y work. There are only a few people involved in guilds right now. If we have such a point person, it should be a non-guild associated person right now. They're just a point of contact, and they'll be on the info sheet. At least until we get a bigger a11y group going.

lxpk: If it weren't necessary to have a big-C Consensus, it would have already been done. These issues have been brought up before. We passed a thing in 2013 with a11y in mind, but it was kind of forgotten. We're like the beyond-gov't institution, so we should do better. Wrt what Mark said, about it falling into disuse.. I don't think it should be one person to carry the weight, though having a point of contact is good. It should be a whole guild (more than one person) that works on this.

Zach: A couple of things I think would help. Let me clarifiy. Everything here is about standing law. Everything except point D would be required by law if we were a gov't entity. I basically copied over law. lxpk and bfb were here years ago when we first approached these issues. Back then I didn't know the law, so I spent a lot of time dealing with segregation and isolation and ableism. People didn't take it seriously, and I didn't know how to speak up for myself. If it could be solved with small-c, it would have been done a long time ago. I developed a whole wiki page about it, went to numerous meetings about it, experienced a lot of push back on it. There are a lot of things I've had to do in order to maintain access to the space. These convos have been happening for a long time. People come and go, and we lose some knowledge. But having this Consensus item means we're committed to it, and we prioritize it. I think the thing with guilds can be ironed out later.

Mark: I'm going to try to clarify my postion here. At this moment, I'm trying to say that I agree that guilds are the way to go, the solution that was designed for exactly this kind of problem. My stumbling block right now is concrete implementation and what adoption of this Consensus item will get us to do. The items come across to me as words that clarify our stance on things but don't necessarily achieve concrete outcomes. We want to do things and start accomplishing things, not just say where we stand. Does this bring us closer to doing these things? I suppose. It doesn't move us to act, apart from getting people hyped. They're just words.

Relay: I agree with Mark. Our very fluid nature makes it hard for institutional knowledge to be passed on. We could have it in the notes and start each meeting with the info. Or we could set up an email list that could be accessed by all Members.

James: It would be easier to set up an email and have anyone who wants to work on ADA have access to it.

Relay: Yeah, as long the contact doesn't get stolen.

bfb: When I first saw all 4 items, I was a little overwhelmed, but I can see the value of each item and discussing each separately. In response to Mark, I would look back to the anti-harrassment policy. It took much discussion to get through, but it was a healthy discussion for us to have. It has added value to the space and has created an environment of safety. (Mark: that's great. I didn't know it was a consensus item. I figured it was do-ocratically created.) In the same way, this would create safety in the space. I feel these types of Consensus items solidify what excellence is.

lxpk: I agree. The anti-harrassment policy and ask-to-leave are important. I would say these are actually action items. I'm already updating the wiki, following the items. That's concrete.

Zach: bfb and lxpk were very on-point. I like the term "super action item." Previously when I invited disabled people to the space, we've never had a clear stance on a11y. bfb made a good point about how we're defining what excellence is to us. We're trying to be better than the gov't. I encourage everyone here tonight to be mindful of your body privledge. The reality you live in is entirely different.

Gabriel: Thanks, lxpk. When I said these could be done do-ocratically, I wasn't trying to say they shouldn't be consensed on.

lxpk: I get what you meant. It's just about making sure they don't stop happening.

James: Looking at the first consensus item, wrt to streaming, that's a great way of framing the issue. It clarifies that it's something important for people who need to be able to attend those meetings. It clarifies why people need access to NB online, as opposed to "let's stream meetings!" which is how it was posed in the past.

bfb: Any blocking concerns on these items?

Mark: I would like to see some kind of recruitment effort attached to this, so it doesn't just get passed and forgotten about. That would be my amendment if I were to make one. Including some language that makes sure our point of contact is there or can pass on to someone else.

lxpk: We could say for the a11y guild, there should be 4-5 people for the possible point of contact.

Zach: We could also just have an email that pings the Slack. If someone who's disabled wants to get involved at NB, it would be so cool if they ask how they can access things at NB, this pings the whole Slack/Discuss, and anyone can reply. There are a lot of options.

Zach: I wanted to see if that addressed Mark's concerns?

Mark: I'm not sure, honestly. I can't predict the future.

Zach: If we're here next week, and it's about to pass, would you block without an amendment?

Mark: No.

Relay: I think the only reason people might have a problem with this, is there being microphones in the space. It's not like we're going to record every meeting though.

bfb: I think you're referring to the first consensus item.

lxpk: We ask people to observe etiquette wrt streaming with video/audio. We have to make sure people are informed. We should take that into mind.

Zach: We have had documentaries made in the space. Cameras and recorders are brought in all the time. They announce it loudly when they do. I volunteer to make signage about this, like "This is being streamed!"

James: As far as sending something that forwards to Slack and Discuss, we can do that right now. We can do that immediately. In terms of streaming, that's the classic thing we come back to. Streaming as having cameras, that has limited us in the past. But streaming is needed for some people to join the meetings, so it's done in good faith. There's nothing wrong with doing that. There's no ill intent if everyone agrees.

Gabriel: It was a big deal when people wanted to put in a camera to watch the 3D printer. Might be worthwhile to see what people's objections are.

Zach: I'm not asking for anything to be recorded. This is about streaming audio/video to disabled people who want to attend things. Again, I want to emphasize this would be required by law if we were a gov't entity. Maybe there is someone who feels uncomfortable with streaming. I do empathize with that concern, as I take privacy very seriously. This doesn't allow recording at all.

bfb: These meetings are public. There shouldn't be much of an assumption/semblance of privacy. People have the option to speak off-camera. I don't think the concerns of having spy cams in the space overlap with this consensus item. We can announce it loudly, and if you don't want to be in the camera, then you don't go within line of sight.

Jade: Great job everyone who's commented. My attention was peaked when "assumption of privacy" was mentioned. ... I'm all for streaming for accessibility.

Mark: Point of process: Is someone going to be taking the responsibility of posting these consensus items to the Discuss or mailing list?

bfb: Yeah, I can take that up.

Zach: I posted on Discuss earlier, and I'm happy to post again. I want the word to get out. I also emailed and texted some members about this.

Mark: I think that's sufficient to address Gabriel's concern.

bfb: Any amendments or blocking concerns about item #3?

<no objections>

X: Appreciate the conversation and agree with cotinuing the consensus process. at this point I'd say we are accomidating this prior to COVID as a lot of the meetup events are streamed, and I would imagine any excellent member hosting a meeting would make their best efforts to accomidate all requests

X: I can also share a lot of conversations about how there are excellent ways to stream from the space and sometimes record it even. It basically requires consent form everyone involved and a reasonable opt out option for anyone that refuses to partake in such. Things like being very particular about camera positions, angles and visible indication, signaage and notification.


X: If you don't undertand any of that, and have recorded audio, video or other without prior consent. please immediately delete all such data and ask for help on how to proceed.

Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Accessibility notice Summary Author of this Record
Discussed 6.23.20 User Zach Accessibility information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space This consensus proposal is for:

1. Keeping up-to-date durable (laminated) physical postings of accessibility information in a clearly viewable area at the entrance of Noisebridge's physical space.
a. This notice to include some form of contact that disabled people can reach if we cannot access the space. c.


Relay: No objection.

Mark: Seems good to me. Establish a point person and do it.

Zach: I have a laminator in my possession. I can laminate now! It can happen really soon.

Gabriel: On the topic of laminating now, I don't think we need to wait for it to be consensed upon. Just do it.

Zach: Things get taken down all the time. I made this consensus item so people will know that this notice should stay up.

Lxpk: I am getting the wiki text written and that text will be the text of the written notice in question.

bfb: Any amendments or blocking concerns with the text as it is written?


That concludes Week 1 of Consensus Items 1-4!


Discussion Item 1[edit]

Dan - COVID-19 safety scheming:

Dan: In the last 2 weeks, I and X have spent about 30 hours in the space spread over 3 occasions. Trying to make it safe for people coming in to help move. It's challenging. But the most important discovery is that we have figured out about 100% safety in entering the space. It involves locking it up for about 48 hours. That's where we left it. I walk into the space and started tying caution tape over everything I touched (door handles, light switches, etc). There's no way I'm going to be able wipe everything thoroughly, even if I try. With the consent and guidance of our community members, that's where we're at.

Zach: I think people are doing great. I want to recommend one of the best things we can do, is to use adhesive copper. Coronavirus can only survive 4 hours on copper.

X: Touchless is my goal. Doorstop modifications so we don't have to touch them, and electronic access.

lxpk: Getting the door to be less of a transmission place is important. In China they can't touch elevator buttons without sanitizing their hands first. If we put sanitizer by the door, that would be good.

Dan: We need to be able to guarantee, and not rely on people who don't get it (showing up unmasked, unannounced). They're coming to NB and expecting to come in because that's what's been happening. The reality is not that surprising. How do I reach these kids? Continues to wax philisophical.

Evil Dan of moisebridge still goin, we don't have to record word for word, capturing bullets, nice IMHO

Dan: lays out what's what for the vast vast vast variety of duh mission in covid pandamic of reality 2020 hacker on a spaceship edition. Lets keep figuring it out and be excellent to eacth other, and then we shall party on.

From the chat: The stairwell and top door are the single most problematic area at noisebridge, and there is a sanitizer directly after the door at the top

Mark: I was going to suggest, whoever is going to the space should print out that Ministry of Contagion text and stick it up in the space.

Dan: It's a wiki and a work in progress. Please make it better.

lxpk: I didn't know about this page because the name is confusing. I'm going to link to it from the wiki page.

Zach: I hear you, Dan. I want to encourage that you don't have to be nice in these scenarios. If someone is walking around without a mask right now, knowingly risking other people's safety, you don't have to try to educate them. They are not respecting you. You can tell them that NB is closed right now, and if they want to help move they need to have a mask. Let me know if I can help in some way, let me know if you want the laminator. Tyler did mention having a change of the locks, and really locking the space down. I fully support locking the space down more.

Dan: What we've been doing is workshopping how we greet volunteers and orient them in the space. We've been developing a protocol, where we point out where open windows are in case they need to take off their mask briefly. If there are just 2 of us who are in the same household, we go maskless, knowing we will vent the space afterwards.

These are points to consider and practice at home before coming to use that at noisebridge to help move. Please try wearing a face mask and glove for four hours, and DON'T TOUCH YO FACE.

DAN: BLAH BLAH BLAH <<-- Dan chuckles verbally

<Dan mentions people trying to come in without masks and citing disability as an excuse>

Zach: Tell them to f*** off. This reminded me of something. I think bfb and I worked on this. But a long time ago, I was talking about descalation techniques. That would be so easy to do now that we have video meetings. That would be so helpful right now.

X: That was about half of the down low on the past couple of trips to NB. Dan and I are pairing up. We're trying to have it so no one is alone in the space. Anytime someone needs to go to the space, we encourage going to the space in pairs. I spurn the lock and keys. There are so many keys to NB right now. Ministry of Contagion is not finalized yet.

Gabriel: Can you clarifiy why we should be going in pairs?

X: Buddy system, taking care of each other. There's no way to lock the door while being in the space (?).

lxpk: I get that you came up with these proposals and brought them up before making them official. I updated our privacy, accessibility, and safety pages. The safety page says there should be people who help maintain safety. We need these to be visible and updated. I put a summary of the social distancing stuff we've been talking about. Who would be willing to be listed as maintainers?

Zach: I can help.

X: If the maintainers are not going the space, I encourage them to keep in touch with the people who are.

Dan: I must decline [being a maintainer] due to my chronic unresponsibility.

lxpk: That's okay. What about you, X? Is there a second volunteer for safety stuff?

X: I'm working on safety, but I'm more working on Ministry of Contagion and checking fire extinguishers and stuff.

bfb: Any other parting words?

Jade: I found the meeting notes where pyconaut cited not to wear a mask (May 19th). I think he was just giving an example of why people might not wear a mask.

X: Everyone should hang out at home and practice hacking with a mask on. It'll be good practice for when fire season starts. In the space, there are isolatable spaces, like Turing, the Woodshop, etc. Dan and I stay 20 ft away from anyone other than each other. If someone wants to talk, then we put masks on and come closer.

Dan: I want to assume the air has droplets with people in there.

Zach: I'm normally for a11y accommodations, but someone showing up saying they have asthma so they can't wear a mask, that's B.S. because NB is a high-contact space.

The Ministry of Contagion does not allow anyone thru the front gate without a face covering at the VERY least. The final determination should be up to whatever pair is movingin the space at the time.

Discussion Item 1.5[edit]

Meeting format

We are here, do we still have note taker volunteer

Mark: Discussing some changes to a thing, and another thing. Pre-meeting idears

Zach: recapping about meetings, discussion about meetings starting at 7p.

If we move the guild stuff and merge it with announcements, we must be clear to prevent it from devolving into just extended discussion items.

Gabriel: My impression was that pyconaut was in fact doing the meetings before 8. I have a few questions about what was pushed into "pre-meetings" and what wasn't?

Zach: Info is on Discuss somewhere. Its basically all stuff for bushy-tailed newbies to noisebridge help get them acomodated to things and how they work at nb.

Gabriel: Something about changing the order of consensus items and getting them addressed?

We specifically consensed on something about this roughly a few weeks back. We need to first define what is the "beginning" of the meeting exactly. Any ideas of moving Consensus items even closer to the beginning?

lx: maybe financial report and membership stuff, could be later after Consensus?

za: alex, you are proposing we move introductions to pre-8-oclock?

lx: I think the essential part is just making sure ppl know what Consensus is and how they can participate.

bfb: announcements, financial report, membership all should be predictable and quick. They should be all-get-through-able within like 15 minutes.

Za: I know that stuff took over 30 mins today, at least, idk how it was the last few weeks. We should at least take names at 8 o clock. Dunno if we need to bust out a timer, per se, but putting more time limits on things miiight be helpful.


Zach can you put a clock on this

Mark: In the interest of time, let's continue this conversation on

...request for time to consider at least in brief the next 2 discussion items, they are pretty frick'n key to what's up at the space right now.

2 I can leave for the notes, and say that Members need to continue the conversation of being able to have new Members or Philanthropists while we are "closed/moving".

Discussion Item 2[edit]

Membership, capital M and otherwise, hiatus (, "good standing", etc.

lxpk: recapping their take on this, and excellent retelling their example of being in a similar situation and starting the membership process from scratch to re-become a member.

jade: has some thoughts, and thinks not being able to meet people in the space to get to the know them a reason to put a hold on this.

chat: thanX lxpk I'd like to highlight a couple key points and let the community discuss this over the next week also per the current coversation, we are both either members or philanthropists and known by at least some in person already

lxpk: just occured to them (not reading chat), something about Gabriel, and they have been in the space already. Would consider not blocking people that they haven't met so long as enough people have.

jade: wants to say exactly the same thing. what if I want to become a member now, what now?

bfb: completely agrees. It would be extradinary if someone who only new noisebridge thru the pandemic became a member. Observation, could be hard for me to get to know Gabriel

chat: Dan and I can train y'all to be peer buddies for the move

X: BLAH BLAH BLAH sorta pretty much what I wrote here....

The Hiatus information linked was written without Consensus by a former Member who may also have been a treasurer and these read more like policy and proposed best practices.

I think these are well worth considering and would leave it to our current treasurer and secretary, as an acting secretary I stand aside in re-writing or interpriting said policies.

If these feel valid for current Membership and Philanthropists (successor of Associate Membership), I would be using this as an oppurtunity to inform all Members and Philanthropists that they would be highly advised to send an email to & stating explicitly that they believe they are a Member/Philanthropist in good standing, or they are on Hiatus along with when that became effective and when they expect to return with a given time frame.

If you are hearing this or reading this "WE ARE NOISEBRIDGE" it is excellent to give us money. If you are Member or Philanthropist please bring your accounts up to date and verify your payment methods are current and acting as desired.

zach: sharing some thoughts on policy, talk about when they became member. Something about how it was a fairly grueling process when he became one. [would be great if someone linked some wiki meeting notes of this process when it was happening]

mice: we are > 0

X: I personnally reminded Kinnard today there was a meeting, they didn't express a particular interest in attending or have any particular issues to pass along. to the best of my recolection.

zach: laying out some interesting in tricky thoughts that relate to how this isn't an ideal process.

lxpk: idea of people becoming members, and we continued discussing it. make it easy for me to say current candidates should be considered, X included (Me) who I said I would sponsor. Asking about Gabriel and if I can connect with who the heck are you.

Gabriel: (Camera on) talking about history and being a Philanthropist for 2'ish or 3 years now and come and gone during and before. Having thoughts about being more involved on weighing in.

lxpk: Talks about you can always weigh in. do you have any sponsors yet? (...not so much)


X: I've digitally dropped my application on to the computer in the sparkle forge

electro@electro.noisebridge>cat /etc/motd



  As of June 23rd 2020 it's been discussed at one weekly meeting.

  I have one sponsor, lxpk

It is an ongoing discussion about whether or not there will be new members.

zach: we are still figuring this out, if you are interested it's worth going thru the process and getitng some sponsors.

Dan: points out there is an existing consensus that applications are thrown away after sitting in the binder for 12 weeks or more. So may need to include that relative to a consensus to current membership process.

np ;+)

Discussion Item 3[edit]

Opening and Closing the space as required to move.

X: Wrote the following...

I closed the space tonight around 7pm and left it "sealed" as to leave it in a known zero state for the next hacker. I am hoping to encourage the space be closed and left locked for periods of time, as to avoid people otherwise going to the bridge to go the bridge and see what's up. Nothing is up, check the zoom feed if needed or power/net grafs.

I am HIGHLY encouraging excellence in going to the space and developing pairs or the like of people to the space, to specifically avoid scenarios of there being one person alone having to manage the space and handle excellently whatever may come up at any given time. It's also fundamental knowledge share working and learning together and sharing the information in real-time.

There are multiple layers of locks and seals to enter the space at the current time. You first and foremost would need to have the current level of access to get in to the space, which is currently limited to less than 5 people to my knowledge who have the last version of re-keying done on the space.

I have rebuilt the downstairs glass doors, and left them pad locked with a chain that has multiple padlocks and a combination lock. Any one key to any one of those locks would allow access thru the glass doors.

My goal is to start building trusted key chains between us, the idea being 3 people+ can share a common set of keys. My particular experiment for noisebridge is doing it in a way that then any of those 2 people could open the space. Once the space is open any one person in principal could manage the space until it was closed again, presumably by at least 3 people and at least 2.

much more was discussed we are all about out of steam and not writing a lot down.

concerns of unknown people potential in space brought up.

an audible announcement was made of the computers and PA in the space to allow notice to anyone that could have covertly been in the space. No one was seen or heard over two live camera feeds and a microphone which were all temporarily re-enabled. No one was seen or heard in the space at Midnight.

6:40pm #general.... Ⅹ via phreak I'm closing up the space and about to leave, there will be zero people and the space and it will be locked. I'm adding an additional key to the mix and go in to details at the meeting. I've already distributed one key, and there is a coded pad lock that can be used as a by pass if instant access is needed. The bypass access list is anyone with the combo to the CHM locker. This has been briefly discussed and VERY small c consensed with myself, Ahmad, and Tyler. Also present is Dan, who has some objections and is observing. From a thread in #random | Yesterday at 6:40 PM | View reply


Linux commands used during this meeting:

beep && sleep 1 && beep && sleep 1 && beep 
apt install nmap iotop dstat
nmap ???
for n in $(seq 192 255); do ping -c 1 10.20.6.$n; done >> scan.txt &
cat scan.txt | grep -B 1 ' 0%'
tail -f scan.txt 
alsamixer (M mute, F3 speakers, F4 mic, up/down volume)
sudo shutdown now

12:12am the next day

meeting concluded

End of Meeting[edit]