Abolish membership

(Naomi Most) #21

Yeah, well, i think that points to a much deeper cultural problem than just Membership issues.

And it’s not even limited to Noisebridge. The greater cultural pattern in the Bay Area – the one that Mitch consistently points to as the reason he now lives in Berlin – is the tendency for “groupfeel” situations to attempt to suppress conflict in an attempt to bolster social harmony.


Yup. Conflict isn’t a thing to be avoided every time, all the time, but it certainly is something to be hashed out and resolved. Noisebridge has taught me so much about how to do that. I guess I’ve been operating for the past year on the assumption that this generation’s working set of Noisebridgers was at least somewhat versed in how to resolve conflict but clearly that isn’t the case and we need to be more proactive and visible in doing it so that others may grow by example.

(Trent) #23

How do you square this against the fact that this phrase only appeared last year – after 11 years of it not being a thing?

When I coined this turn of phrase, others asserted that it rang a bell with them. It’s been named in the last year, maybe that’s why it’s coming up more in the last year.

(Trent) #24

Agreed 100%. I don’t know if I would support a selection process or not.

Selection advantages:

  • Helps set expectations so people don’t look like fools for trying to pay us money and join then get sad when they find out it’s not joinable by default like a gym.

Selection disadvantages:

  • aforementioned loci of agency is on the group to bring someone in… well this isn’t exactly how it works. Usually someone asks a member to invite them in these sorts of situations, so I don’t totally agree that selection puts the loci of agency on the group edited

I guess I want to seperate this part out: membership is a selection process BEHIND a application process. :zipper_mouth_face:

(Trent) #25

This is frustrating. Maybe anonymous blocking should stay since it leaves a safe outlet for people who fear retribution. This is a tension of Noisebridge. You might have enough energy to do work at Noisebridge but not enough energy to fight a turf war.

If you think of time as bi-directional, under the course of events where someone who was blocked could have made a perfectly great member in one branch of events, or they are blocked and leave in some other branch of events – if we are in branch 1 (the person becomes a member) but as a result the person who blocked them leaves, who has more rights? Since time only flows one way, humans generally provide control to the people who have a proven record of ownership. This is pragmatically right, but also underlines a fundamental issue with a binary membership status for each member of the community. It creates these situations, afterall.

(James) #26

Membership grows less relevant with each passing year. A reason this convo is just bouncing between a few members is because others do not have anything to say on it. Consensus isn’t needed on doocracy items, and a little bit of excellent planning can circumvent consensus entirely. My .02

(Matt) #27

The problem I have with these blocks is that it means the blocking member cannot trust anyone else in Membership to represent their reasoning.

Why is this person in Membership if they cannot trust one other member? Why does Membership want to encourage a system where this person continues to be a member when the entire body is not trusted by the blocking member?

fwiw my block was not technically anonymous as the blocking member executed it. they indicated it was for someone else. I’m totally fine with this type of block, it showed trust between some people. anonymous blocking as I understand it does not.

It does keep that individual safer, but the unintended consequence is that it allows one person to maintain the benefits of the community without participating in the trust network. This does not leave the community safer.

Why are people so concerned about others leaving? The people leaving might not be good. The assumption that all members are good has proven false.