Talk:Current Consensus Items

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

Motivation for "Access Policy Reboot":

* Follow-up previous consensus proposal, which was tabled after discussion
* Not entirely trolling here: it actually might make sense to try this ...
* Radically simplify proposed language: just say "as open as possible" 
* Realign policy with current consensus reality
* Make room to develop better language (and policy) from a clean slate

This latest proposal removes language describing access restrictions altogether, and adds the simple affirmation that Noisebridge should be "as open as possible" ...

(Note: ... not .) Yes, this leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

Would be nice if the '...' serves to inspire a bit more nuanced, balanced language still reflecting widespread agreement, such as:

  • "as open as possible for appropriate use."
  • (please add your excellent suggestions here)

As is, just to help clear the air a bit in the meantime.

Note that this language does not explicitly preclude access control, which can still be experimented with and re-codified if necessary.

Also note: How does this impact the "Associate Member" concept? While it does undermine some of the presumed motivation ("guaranteed" 24/7 access), it does not otherwise negate the recognition of Associate Members as such. And, decoupling access control from the "Associate Member" meme should add flexibility as we experiment more with both of these frameworks going forward.


(details from https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014_05_27)

(tabled/"blocked")
Improve wording about associate membership.
What was consensed as
 "Noisebridge's space shall be open only to members and associate members
 at any time. A member or associate member may at any time invite a person
 into Noisebridge and host that person at Noisebridge as long as that
 member or associate member remains at Noisebridge. No other person shall
 be permitted at Noisebridge at any other time."
should be changed to
 "Noisebridge is open to Members, Associate Members, and guests sponsored
 by same, at all times.  Any person who is not one of the above may be
 asked to leave if no Member or Associate Member present wishes to sponsor
 them at that time, with no other justification being necessary.
 People coming to Noisebridge who don't know anyone should be introduced
 to members who are present so that sponsorship can occur if members
 present choose to do so at that time.  Noisebridge should present itself
 as "open to public visitors and guests as often as possible"

A sample of concerns and suggestions from the discussion notes:

"Would be great to have this simplified.
In practice, this is what's already happening."
...
"I'm willing to work on this text to make it worth changing.
This text is trying to ameliorate the problems that the original text created.
People thought they had to be invited to Noisebridge to attend at all, even
those going to classes. Didn't solve any problems. We have the same problems
we had before. We still have to ask people to leave. Types of people who are
asked to leave: those who don't care about cultural code, and those who know
about it but are too whacked out to behave and need to be yanked out."
...
"As a new person, that new wording was what I saw, and I felt uninvited,
but I came and felt welcomed. What about 'be excellent to each other'?"
...
"For your consideration, a sign saying we welcome everyone,
but we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Personal tools