Backed out Community WorkGroup Language #25

wants to merge 5 commits into


None yet

4 participants


Backed out Community WorkGroup Language.

While it may be a good idea to administer this through the Community Work Group initiative, I agreed with Naomi's comment that it appears premature.
Changes name to fair usage policy, and suggests tailoring response to problematic behavior short of banning. Addresses Sleeping, Food, Storage, Out of Bounds areas, and "asked to leave" practice.

Noisebridge member

I actually like what you've written here, but I'm concerned that it will precipitate a large influx of issues into the Community Working Group before it's even had a chance to determine what it is capable of handling.

In particular, enforcing consequences (as you exampled up above in lines 9-14) will not be a simple or straightforward problem to solve.

Keep in mind the CWG hasn't met a single time yet, and its first order of business will be to come up with lists of issues it should and shouldn't handle. It seems premature to "legislate" a flow of problems towards the CWG before that's been done.


I do not understand the purpose or intent of this change. Its not okay to insult someone for being homeless, even if they are sleeping at Noisebridge. Respectfully waking someone does not require an exemption from the anti-harassment policy.


Perhaps your not understanding the purpose of this change because you have not tried to ask people to not sleep at Noisebridge.

As an experiment, Kevin , please you ask some people not to sleep any more at Noiesbridge. You know several of them, and better than most, can approach them from a good conversationally position Then, after asking people not to sleep at Noisebridge, and hearing their response, please see if you still believe there is no purpose in making this clarification.


I try it out Greg. Still please, explain to me under what circumstances will anyone need an exemption from the anti-harassment policy to wake someone?


My personal experience on this was with Josh, not for waking him, but for talking to him about sleeping at Noisebridge. I didn't wake him, but after he awoke I talked to him with concern about his sleeping at Noisebridge. He told me that he had checked with you and that you had told him sleeping was allowed at Noisebridge. That there were no rules against sleeping at Noisebridge.

I said in effect that I understood that things happen in life, and I wasn't trying to come down harshly, but that his always being there was keeping others from fully enjoying the place. He challenged me to explain how his sleeping hurt others, but interrupted me as I tried. He stated that he has an apartment in the Spring Street area of Manhattan, and is not homeless, but pivoted so say since I was harassing him for basically living at noisebridge, and was breaking the policy, with the implication that I was harassing him for being homeless.


Kevin, I realized I missed addressing one point. I don't think of this as being an exemption to the anti-harassment policy, I am saying it should be clear that the policy doesn't cover this case. Addressing that someone is living at Noisebridge, is not harassing the person on the basis of homelessness, even if the person finds the attention unwelcome.


@gregorydillon It looks as though there might be more edits in here than you actually meant to propose. Is this actually your intended pull-request, or is only some of it your intent?


Tom. Correct.
I'm still learning to not make errors with github. When I made a pull request I meant for it to be on one file, and it followed its own logic and made a pull requests on everything in that directory. I could try to clean up it, but today is too busy to do it today.

Conclusion. - I don't mean to include in the pull request the sentence to clarify that addressing with someone that they are residing at Noisebridge is not harassment in the meaning of the Noisebridge anti-harassment policy. Its a proper point, but I don't want to mix too many things at once. Secondly, the file that has the references to the CWG, is something that I closed as a pull request per Naomi suggestion, but yeah, I didn't do it completely right.


I'm going to close this pull request because it fits into other pieces that have been partly superseded by organizational changes. I continue to stand by the general concept

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment