House rules #9

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Mar 19, 2014

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@flamsmark
Contributor

flamsmark commented Feb 20, 2014

Here are some proposed house rules. I think that most of this represents existing broad lower-case-c-consensus. Highlights:

  • We have a thing about telling people to leave.
  • Noisebridge is your hackerspace, not your home.
  • The basement, roof and fire escape are out of bounds.
@nthmost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthmost

nthmost Feb 26, 2014

"Failure to depart when instructed in this way is a serious offense." I've thought about this line a lot. I don't know if it can be improved, but there are scenarios that warrant a more lenient interpretation of failing to depart:

  • feeling of being unsafe in traveling (e.g. it's 4am)
  • sickness or injury
  • mobility issues (e.g. the elevator doesn't work)

I'm not saying the person shouldn't be expected to leave at earliest convenience. I'm just saying, let's make sure we don't over-enforce the policy and ignore mitigating circumstances.

"Failure to depart when instructed in this way is a serious offense." I've thought about this line a lot. I don't know if it can be improved, but there are scenarios that warrant a more lenient interpretation of failing to depart:

  • feeling of being unsafe in traveling (e.g. it's 4am)
  • sickness or injury
  • mobility issues (e.g. the elevator doesn't work)

I'm not saying the person shouldn't be expected to leave at earliest convenience. I'm just saying, let's make sure we don't over-enforce the policy and ignore mitigating circumstances.

@setient

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@setient

setient Feb 27, 2014

What do you mean by sickness or injury? The mobility issue is something we would need to contact the landlord about ASAP and we should have that as a thing.

What do you mean by sickness or injury? If someone got injured at the space and are using it as a hospice or whatever, I don't think we are one so we shouldn't allow that.

As for the unsafe in travelling, that is resolvable by leaving at a time you feel it is safe out or having someone else help you get to a point in the city where you feel safe or calling a cab perhaps. I think we need to come up with a better solution for this one. It is a problematic thing.

setient commented Feb 27, 2014

What do you mean by sickness or injury? The mobility issue is something we would need to contact the landlord about ASAP and we should have that as a thing.

What do you mean by sickness or injury? If someone got injured at the space and are using it as a hospice or whatever, I don't think we are one so we shouldn't allow that.

As for the unsafe in travelling, that is resolvable by leaving at a time you feel it is safe out or having someone else help you get to a point in the city where you feel safe or calling a cab perhaps. I think we need to come up with a better solution for this one. It is a problematic thing.

@nthmost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthmost

nthmost Mar 4, 2014

Member

@setient I'm bringing up issues related to enforcement.

I'm saying, when we write down that we consider something a "serious offense", let's not -- when we discuss individual situations -- ignore mitigating circumstances. Let's not use what's written as trigger excuses to demonize people.

What do I mean by sickness or injury? Some people have mobility issues (previous injury). Some people have narcolepsy. Chronic conditions exist that don't necessitate accusations of "using NB as a hospice".

You may say, "well, don't get into those circumstances." Then all you're doing is injecting more privilege for the able-bodied into the world.

Please remember that the individual asked to leave may not actually be at fault; they may only have just been accused of something, or gotten into a heated misunderstanding.

We expect anyone to leave who has been asked to leave (I will do so every time!). Failure to do so needs to be evaluated carefully, not cause for an instant black mark. That's all I'm saying here.

Member

nthmost commented Mar 4, 2014

@setient I'm bringing up issues related to enforcement.

I'm saying, when we write down that we consider something a "serious offense", let's not -- when we discuss individual situations -- ignore mitigating circumstances. Let's not use what's written as trigger excuses to demonize people.

What do I mean by sickness or injury? Some people have mobility issues (previous injury). Some people have narcolepsy. Chronic conditions exist that don't necessitate accusations of "using NB as a hospice".

You may say, "well, don't get into those circumstances." Then all you're doing is injecting more privilege for the able-bodied into the world.

Please remember that the individual asked to leave may not actually be at fault; they may only have just been accused of something, or gotten into a heated misunderstanding.

We expect anyone to leave who has been asked to leave (I will do so every time!). Failure to do so needs to be evaluated carefully, not cause for an instant black mark. That's all I'm saying here.

@etceteracetera

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@etceteracetera

etceteracetera Mar 5, 2014

24 hours? I thought the practice was to come back to a Tuesday meeting?

24 hours? I thought the practice was to come back to a Tuesday meeting?

Tom Lowenthal
I guess it's okay to use the fire escape if Noisebridge is *on fire*,…
… and removed language about calling the police.

flamsmark pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2014

@flamsmark flamsmark merged commit ff099a0 into noisebridge:master Mar 19, 2014

@flamsmark

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flamsmark

flamsmark Mar 19, 2014

Contributor

This proposal reached consensus at the general meeting on 2014-03-18.

Contributor

flamsmark commented Mar 19, 2014

This proposal reached consensus at the general meeting on 2014-03-18.

@flamsmark

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flamsmark

flamsmark Mar 19, 2014

Contributor

After our initial discussion of this topic, @kevinjos arrived and expressed specific concerns.

Contributor

flamsmark commented Mar 19, 2014

After our initial discussion of this topic, @kevinjos arrived and expressed specific concerns.

kevinjos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2014

kevinjos
Merge pull request #23 from nbdt/revertHouseRules
Revert "Merge pull request #9 from flamsmark/administrative-reorg"

kevinjos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2014

trying this.
Merge pull request #23 from nbdt/revertHouseRules

Revert "Merge pull request #9 from flamsmark/administrative-reorg"
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment