[hackerspaces] Hackerspace drama, oh my!

[Naomi Most]

The "meta point" being that no one should model a hackerspace on Noisebridge?

That may be true.  I have no stake in that particular game.

There are dozens of ways to model a hackerspace, and I wouldn't say
Noisebridge has the best one.  It's an interesting model, and one I
feel is worth pursuing because it is hard, and I perceive there to be
payoffs in figuring it out without compromising its ideals.  You may
disagree.

But the original point *I* was addressing was the assertion that if
you start with a community and then build an organization, that the
rest will basically follow.

I used Noisebridge as a counterexample to THAT point.

Noisebridge is a great example of how organizations based on culture
and minimal policy can easily shift, even pushing its original members
out, simply by being unaware of how the rapid influx of new people
(ANY new people, not the oft-demonized Occupy and so on) changes the
culture by sheer weight.

That's not the only lesson learned from the last 5 years at 2169
Mission St, but it is one of the biggest ones.

Again: if you guys can't see past "at least we aren't Noisebridge",
you're never going to be able to learn from our mistakes.

--Naomi




On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com> wrote:
> Naomi,
>
> sudoroom has the same problems as noisebridge because it explicitly modeled
> itself on noisebridge with consensus decision making, an open door policy to
> the street, and a political, social justice mission. They've gone as far as
> to say a space isn't a real hackerspace if it isn't political.
>
> Your counterexample proves the meta point...



-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost