Tuesday General Meeting 06/09/2020

The Noisebridge General Meeting occurs weekly. Join us TONIGHT June 9, 2020 8:00 PM :

Bookmark these links! They’re the same link every week, so these same links should still be correct! Accept no substitutes!

Please add additional information and details! See you there!

Thanks for the excellent meeting everyone. Shout out to our VIP note-taker Tiffany!

We passed 2 consensus items:

  1. Official closure of noisebridge during stage 1 and stage 2 of Covid-19 with some provisions for moving and such and
  2. Limiting of NB to no more than 4 people if something has to happen in the space during this closure (see consensus wiki page for provisions and details)

We also discussed the basics and finance and other random bits!

Please clarify:

First item: stage of reopening, as determined by the state of California or the city and county of San Francisco? If the latter, what sub-stage of stage 2 (there are a,b, and c as described at https://sf.gov/information/reopening-san-francisco)

Second item: “during the Pandemic” - can you be more specific? As recommended by the cited document, will Noisebridge be developing a site-specific plan that will be more flexible than “4 people”?

My sense is both these proposals were poorly drafted. Please consider formally amending these by the Consensus process.

I think that jmw asks the right question. Which sub-stage of stage 2 are you talking about? Because stage 2 covers a lot of states on the spectrum from everything is closed to almost everything is opened… And it could be a 3-month span.


From the notes, I was assuming stage 3 was when Noisebridge would open to more people (so mid-August). I can be wrong though

This has been posted here and discussed for something like 4 weeks at meetings with the adopted text for over 2 weeks. It was discussed that noisebridge is not an essential business and that this is for all of stage 2. We had detailed, very long discussions about prioritizing safety, the fact that the space is already supposed to be closed, concerns about a second spike after the protests etc. It is worded so that it won’t interfere with the move.

Is there a reason why somebody wants to be in the space right now?
Please see the text on the consensus page for the exceptions, such as cleaning out a locker, moving, etc.

I think this is a very positive step for Noisebridge being safe and following science and being mindful of our community. I’m very grateful to those that attended these long meetings to help deliberate and discuss the details.

A lot of time was spent going over the details of the wording. The stages that it refers to are actually Linked In the text, so please click on the links if you have any questions.

1 Like

Permitting just 4 people in the space at a time is a lot lower than the recommended number given our square footage. How was this number arrived at?

In the last meeting I was at a few weeks ago, the maximum occupancy we all discussed was 6, and in the chat several of us were exchanging links and doing some math. Permitting 6 at a time is needlessly low. Somehow that number was reduced even further, apparently down to 4 (I don’t know when that change was made).

With all due respect Zach, it seems to me that you are conflating the most cautious possible policy (0-4 people max) with the most scientifically-backed (up to 25, if evenly spaced, which is unrealistic to maintain, so roughly 10-15).

If we want to be the most scientific we should:

  1. Regularly clean surfaces
  2. Not permit people into Noisebridge who are over about 50 years old, even to make PPE
  3. Permit a maximum of 10-15 people into NB at a time, including PPE makers (rather than 4 non-PPE makers and ???-many people who are making PPE), with priority going to PPE makers because they are saving lives :heart: :noisebridge:
  4. Not pretend that 44 deaths in a city of 880,000 – 1 out of every 20,000 people – is catastrophic; thankfully, it really isn’t! Especially for those under 40 years of age, who die from COVID-19 at a rate of 0.2%, compared to 0.1% of people under 40 who die from getting the flu (here’s source #2 saying the same thing).

Zach, that’s not a helpful answer to the specific questions I asked, so I will repeat myself.

California enters stage 3 tomorrow (June 12) - do you mean to use reopening stages as determined by the state of California or the city and county of San Francisco? If the latter, why stage 3 as opposed to SF’s finer grained stage 2 milestones that specifically include manufacturing and offices?

Terms like “during the Pandemic” and “until covid ends” (in Slack) are being bandied about, and these are not precise terms. What does “during the Pandemic” mean, specifically?

1 Like

The official proposal is more precise: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_Consensus_Items

But I’m going off that wiki page! The first consensus item links to the State of California reopening phases, so is it State or City reopening phases?

The second one says “[limit] the number of people at Noisebridge during the Pandemic to no more than four (4) people in the space at any given time.” Is that tied to a reopening phase, or what? I also share the concerns it is lower than is reasonable, and lacks the flexibility that an actual site-specific plan would accomplish.

1 Like

If I might suggest - rather than stressing too much about details of the already-done Consensus items, maybe an easier way forward would be to now focus on hashing out a More Better Consensus to open the space back up as safely as possible.


I can understand that some people want to be extra cautious. The lockdown has certainly saved lives. But it has a cost and to my mind (I can understand that some people might disagree with me), this cost is already way superior to the savings.

The countries which have implemented a very strict and severe lockdown (Spain, Italy, France…) have not achieved better results that countries which have implemented smart restrictions (South Korea, Japan) - quite the opposite.

Regularly cleaning surfaces + face mask + gel + social distancing would achieve a similar result to the restriction of 4 people at a much lesser economical cost.

My thoughts: people at Noisebridge can’t read signs and will always bend the rules.

If we put a sign outside Noisebridge saying 4 PEOPLE MAXIMUM we will generally have between 4 and 8 people in the space. Which is reasonable.

If we put a sign saying 10 PEOPLE MAX we will end up with 10 - 20 people in the space. Which is way too many.

In regards to sanitation:

Noisebridge has always shown a complete inability to take out the trash despite slack reminders and Mary singing the cleanup song for 10 minutes every trash night.

No one is going to be regularly wiping down surfaces.