15 May
2014
15 May
'14
3:12 p.m.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Tony Barreca <tony.barreca(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I'm with Sam. Thought the wording and gist of the
proposed changes were,
in essence, rococo in their complexity. Sub-optimal from a user-interface
POV. Simplify, simplify, simplify!
Which part did you feel needed simplifying? "Sudo room is not intended to
be used for habitation or domestic purposes" or "No-one is allowed to
sleepin sudo room at any time"?
I think the idea was that "not intended for habitation" was too abstract
and hard to enforce, and that a simple "no sleeping" rule would better
empower members to stand up against problematic individuals.
Having people sleep in the space (and becoming know as a place where people
*can* spend the night) has been a big problem at Noisebridge and many other
hackerspaces. A straightforward "no sleeping" rule may be overly
simplistic, but it still takes a real person to make a judgement call on
whether or not to enforce the rule depending on the situation.
Patrik