Talk:Access Control

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting 2012-02-09[edit]

So social engineering this evening concentrated on trying to define the problem we've been discussing on nb-discuss these past few aeons, listed the challenges, listed the aspects of Noisebridge we wanted to preserve, and then went through the classes of proposed solutions, and how much we liked them.

What was the winner? The proposal we liked the most was putting into place a keycode system (probably Kelly's hot-tub matrix), but not losing the key and the buzzer for now -- and indeed a general encouragement to create as many interesting ways of getting into the place as possible. Once we see how those go as a temporary plan and see what the uptake is, the goal would be to turn off the buzzer, but that would only be after more discussion and experimentation.

I'll pass over to Kelly who I think is going to lead this as a spun-off project.

I'm not around for soceng next week, so feel free to use that meeting for this, though I think it's big enough to spin out on its own.

The problem space[edit]

We seem to be worried about:

  • Crazy people who come up and want to shoot everyone
  • Burglars with swag bags
  • Increased entropy in general (messiness, slacking instead of hacking)
  • The public image of Noisebridge as not safe and a bit skeevy
  • Some sort of uncool disaster

Challenges to any solution

  • We are structure minimalists
  • No clear dividing line between good crazy and bad crazy
  • "Noisebridge is self-trolling and games ours own solutions"
  • Hard to disseminate knowledge
  • Hard to to enforce rules

Proposed solutions[edit]

(Pluses and minuses are strawpoll votes, D = doacratically doable, C = would require consensus in meeting)

D Improving self-policing through education ++++--

(ie having more direct explanation and role-playing of throwing people out, to get over our natural reticence to do so)

C A blanket access fee ++------

(ie $10 to get in the place)

D Always locking the top door ++-

(people seemed to think this was okay in combination with something else)

D Access code as supplementary system ++++++++-

(Kelly's system was discussed in detail, but this applied to any access system.)

C Access code as only system ++------

(We really didn't want to depend on a high-tech system. Wanted the keys to stay)

C Cutting the buzzer +++----

(Maybe in the future, once another access system had emerged.)

C Closing down at night ++----

(That's to say, NB ends at 11PM say)

C Members only at night ++++-

C Cellphone entry only +----

(Ie some sort of phone-door-opening triangle)

D Temporary versions of all above +++++

(Lots of support for trying stuff out, seeing what sticks)

D Concentrating on individual +++++

(Some support for working on preventing certain people, rather than just raising bar on access)

C Greylists/Blacklists ++++

(Some support for raising enforcement of Noisebridge's somewhat moribund greylits/blacklist proposal)