[hackerspaces] In defense of Noisebridge (even if I was never there!)

Thu Jul 3 20:21:21 CEST 2014

We're a "movement"?

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Colin Keigher
<general at keyboardcowboy.ca> wrote:
> Please stop calling it "civic hacking". It's called "activism" and it has no
> business in the hackerspace movement.
>
>
> On 03/07/2014 11:15, Randall G. Arnold wrote:
>
> So Colin, are you then philosophically opposed to civic hacking?  Do you see
> it as out of scope for a maker/hacker space?  If so, do you have an
> alternative in mind for an organizing body?  Truly curious.
>
> Randy
>
>
> On July 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM Colin Keigher <general at keyboardcowboy.ca> wrote:
>
> I think that allowing a space to call itself a "hackerspace" while trying to
> become something more poisons the movement for everyone else and likely
> ruins it.
>
> Groups like IndyMedia failed because of their insistence on promoting a
> viewpoint that was extreme. This viewpoint ended up coming into play because
> of individuals who got involved who had certain attitudes. It is these same
> types of individuals who contributed to IMCs being looked down upon. Tragedy
> of the commons really played a role in making IndyMedia irrelevant.
>
> This same plague that took down many of the IMCs is the same plague that can
> take over a hackerspace. This is the plague you want to avoid if you want to
> make sure that your space does not end up trying to become something it has
> no business becoming. Much of the problems that people want to tackle that
> spaces have no business being a part of should be addressed in the public
> sphere through government and political activism. A hackerspace should only
> be there to provide tools to assist, not solutions.
>
> Asking for diversity in hackerspaces as a whole is going to lead to
> hackerspaces being looked down upon and will lead to Noisebridge-esque jokes
> being hackerspace-esque instead.
>
> - Colin
>
> On 03/07/2014 10:52, matt wrote:
>
> I'd think this strikes to the heart of defining the mission of a space.  At
> NYC Resistor we went with Learn, Make, Share... but obviously we needed to
> limit some other aspects of what we might accomplish in order to protect the
> core mission.
>
> And that core mission really is the gooey center of our community.  It's
> something we're all on board with.
> So I think the question of politically activism in hackerspaces strikes to
> the very core of a hackerspace as a community.  By being political you've
> become unwelcoming to those who might disagree with your views, and your
> goals.  You've focused more on building the community you want to be a part
> of.
> I'd say that's probably a good thing for those who are part of that
> community and make that community a healthy one.
>
> That being said, I think some communities are obviously toxic... such as
> what remains of Occupy.  And frankly, I'd say the same of Indymedia.  It's
> interesting as it drives to the core of how do you cultivate and how do you
> define the metric of success for a healthy community?
> At the same time there is the dichotomy of hackerspace as a public utility
> rather than as a community.  My library is not a place I go to enjoy the
> company of my peers.  It's a place I go to get access to shared knowledge in
> the form of books.  And that's great.
> Some spaces may want to be ran as a public utility.  I think the noisebridge
> model drove that direction.  But some of the members never could let go of
> the idea of being a community and enjoying the benefits of that trust
> relationship.  They couldn't reconcile the divide between hackerspace as a
> public utility and hackerspace as a community.
>
> And I think at the core of this discussion is the question of whether or not
> these two views are irreconcilable.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Randall G. Arnold
> <randall.arnold at texrat.net> wrote:
>
> Texas politics are very polarized these days and get ugly quick, so we've
> tried to get our community to leave that aspect of their lives at home.
> There's a strong tea party undercurrent to our membership though, and it is
> what it is.  So far people have been respectful enough to let the
> provocative comments be, and we haven't had an issue.  Yet.
>
> That said, I'm not sure how that question came out of what I posted, which
> was apolitical.  I do get that societal issues CAN get political, but we've
> put a lot of effort into avoiding the polarizing aspects.  Things like clean
> air and water aren't really political issues-- they're politicized by people
> with non-maker agendas.  Restoring horned lizards cuts across all
> demographics here-- everyone wants them brought back.  So in cases like
> these, it's easy to pull together people of diverse political leanings.  We
> put our focus on the COMMON goals.
>
> Randy
> Tarrant Makers
>
>
> On July 3, 2014 at 12:32 PM Al Billings < albill at openbuddha.com> wrote:
>
> Is your space welcoming to people, regardless of personal politics or do you
> have to be a specific kind of lefty/socialist/anarchist/hippy/whatever in
> order to be welcome?
>
> I say this as a socialist but I don’t want there to be a political litmus
> test on whether people are welcome in a space. My space has members who,
> quietly on occasion, bitch about Obama and his “agenda” with an eye roll
> from some other members. We have a communist or two and probably more than a
> few anarchists. Generally, I know someone for a year or more before I even
> realize their personal politics. Why? Because we’re there to hack, not to
> form a political party.
>
> There are definitely spaces where this isn’t the case. If you aren’t on
> board with the specific local politics (which are usually a certain specific
> form of left leaning anarchism), you are shunned pretty heavily and “don’t
> fit in.” I’d rather have a Republican that wants to build a project from
> salvaged computers than an anarchist that just wants to hang out in the
> kitchen “food hacking.”
>
> Al
>
> On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Randall G. Arnold < randall.arnold at texrat.net>
> wrote:
>
> I disagree when you frame that as an absolute.  Sure, there CAN be negative
> outcomes when a maker/hacker space or organization has fixing societal
> problems as a goal, but it ain't necessarily so.  It all comes down to
> defining the goal(s), having people to support them and for members with
> different goals to be respectful of each other and not get in each other's
> way.
>
> If as a makerspace member I put together a special interest group that
> builds remote wildlife monitoring stations for helping horned lizard
> conservation, and I don't disrupt anyone else in the process, then I'm
> positively hacking the planet and no one gets hurt.  Win-win.
>
>
> Al Billings
> albill at openbuddha.com
> http://makehacklearn.org
>
>
>
> Randall (Randy) Arnold
> Developer and Enthusiast Advocate
> http://texrat.net
> +18177396806
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>