as it stands, we have a password for the front door and a url for the inner door. even
nonmembers could potentially find these and use them, right? i think members having a
unique rfid keycard to enter the space and be recorded in a log would at least give some
indication of who is opening the space when, and would provide some sort of trail to
investigate in case there is any sort of theft. of course a digital trail is no
protection against violent behavior - i have to defer to other peoples' concerns on
the latter point as I would have no second thoughts on actively neutralizing any violent
behavior against myself or other members if I'm there. as far as limiting who can
open the space, i concur with george and others that it is wise to use caution and to make
clear that it's not an instant, pay for play type scenario - that it is part of a
process of an individual merging into a community and demonstrating understanding of the
ideals, norms, etc. what exactly that process is and where we place various milestones
can be debated at great length i'm sure, but we may just want to pick a few arbitrary
threshold numbers (2-3 people vouch for your honesty, etc. and showing up to 2 meetings,
being involved in the community for 3 months, getting at least a 70% score on a quiz RE
our articles of association, whatever) and have a process where people can anonymously (?)
object to or voice their concerns regarding admittance of a particular person to the
community. Openness is key, as is safe space, community vibe, harmony, etc. It's a
tough nut to crack but that's what we're here for, right? to build a new
community from scratch?
Apr 4, 2013 12:25:53 PM, marina.kukso(a)gmail.com wrote:
+a million to jordan's email.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Sonja Trauss sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi I'm totally new here and I don't know any of
you. I live in west Oakland but I belong to Noisebridge! Absurd.
I agree with an earlier poster that it is valuable to make members/ people work for what
they get. Not giving ppl 24 h access is as justifiable for that reason as it is for the
I suggest you adopt the age-old policy of having
to get a current member to recommend you in order to be a full member (24-h access).
Someone like me could become a partial member immediately, with limited access, and then I
would have to meet some people and get one (or two, if that's the rule) to sign off on
me being a full member. It sounds exclusive, but it's actually already how communities
On Apr 4, 2013 11:57 AM, "rusty lindgren" rustylindgren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Just thought I would point this out, since it came up earlier in the dues thread.
But, Marc's point(a very good marketing point about 24/7 access), has as a big
security exception, we didn't really talk about, probably mostly because of time.
Basically, it's easy for us to think "hey, we
should let this person have access, because they seem cool, and we want to remain
open," but even I get sketched out at night sometimes, and there are real safety
issues at work here, and we should discuss them in relation to cost/benefits for the
space. It's also entirely possible that we trust someone, and they just do something
bad anyway. We don't really spend a lot of time thinking about this, but this is
something we haven't had to really deal with yet, because we've had really shitty
access up until now.
I don't know if my survey asked this question
properly, but I was trying to see if 24/7 access was worth more to people as a value, but
I think for some people it could be a safety draw-back, and at least in 1 case this is
true. I also am not sure it's really something we should be promoting, if we do
decide on it being okay for members to do.
If anyone wants to post about how they feel about
this(I think it really is about feelings in this case, because it's about promoting
membership and establishing wants/needs), then please feel free to reply here.
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss mailing list
>sudo-discuss mailing list