Sleeping in the Space

85 views
Skip to first unread message

Russ Garrett

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 4:33:26 AM9/1/11
to London Hack Space
I think we agree there has been too much sleeping in the space. That's
not what it's for. It makes members uncomfortable to have to worry
about waking people up, and it doesn't look good to visitors to have
people sleeping. There is precedence in the Hackerspaces design
patterns [1].

So, to make this clear, I propose a new rule: "Do not treat the
Hackspace like your home, it is a shared space. You should not sleep
in the space."

I think it's worth clarifying exactly what the intention of this rule is:

1) If you are a member, and you have no way of getting home, you can
sleep in the space. But you should never plan to do this, and you must
get up before 09:00 to find your way home.
2) If you are a visitor, you may be able to stay at the space for a
night or two, but you should ask the mailing list first.

Any objections to adding this wording to the rules?

[1] http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/The_Roommate_Anti-Pattern

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

James Harrison

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 4:46:04 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sounds good to me. Can we make should into must? It's not an
unreasonable expectation for people planning to travel to the space to
throw the list a quick email. Certainly beats most hotel/hostel booking
processes. Given that the expectation (I'd think) would be that people
are okay with visitors passing by spending a night in the space with a
sleeping bag, I wouldn't see a problem with that.

Might be worth encouraging visitors to bring their own sleeping bags if
they plan to sleep over- the hygiene point raised in the prior thread is
worth listening to, and again, this still beats out hostels.

Cheers,
James Harrison
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5fRkwACgkQmJV2s0zjsDhpKwCfUKzhUGF/+2yqKCV1lqwS/bn4
1VAAn13RtCfikPoIppXEMymdbHa264T+
=KDCT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Martin

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 5:07:24 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Possibly also a suggestion that people shouldn't sleep in the space for more than 2 nights in a row without mailing the list first, even members

Robert Leverington

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 5:11:08 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 2011-09-01, Martin wrote:
> Possibly also a suggestion that people shouldn't sleep in the space for more
> than 2 nights in a row without mailing the list first, even members

That would need to be premeditated, which is against the proposed guidelines.

Robert

Glen

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 5:14:36 AM9/1/11
to London Hackspace
If only we still had a Hackvan, we could have made people sleep there.

Sam Cook

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 6:18:27 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
with regards to visitors staying over for "a night or two" are we setting a hard limit? Also do we want to create a situation where being a member is detrimental i.e. by these rules it is better to be a visitor than a member as you are allowed to pre-meditate staying over for a couple of nights. 

Could we instead set it so that you may _crash_ over one night or stay two nights (max) if you prearrange it on the list (for example during hackathons). 

Either way I like the 0900 = you get up rule (perhaps an alarm set for then?) 

</bikeshed>

S

Martin Dittus

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 6:24:43 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I don't think we're interested in a hard limit.

In its "rules" the Hackspace has always erred on the side of trusting people to do the right thing, and I think this is an attitude we should keep when making new rules.

m.

Darren Hubbard

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 6:32:24 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

I would like to add something along the lines, that people sleeping in the space are at a low priority and will get no special treatment regarding noise, lights, activities, cameras etc regardless of the time of day blah blah blah.

Dave Ingram

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 6:34:58 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 01/09/11 11:32, Darren Hubbard wrote:

I would like to add something along the lines, that people sleeping in the space are at a low priority and will get no special treatment regarding noise, lights, activities, cameras etc regardless of the time of day blah blah blah.

+1, although I'd perhaps word it as "should expect no special consideration regarding".

Billy

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:01:31 AM9/1/11
to London Hackspace


On Sep 1, 11:34 am, Dave Ingram <d...@dmi.me.uk> wrote:
> On 01/09/11 11:32, Darren Hubbard wrote:
>
> > I would like to add something along the lines, that people sleeping in
> > the space are at a low priority and will get no special treatment
> > regarding noise, lights, activities, cameras etc regardless of the
> > time of day blah blah blah.
>
> +1, although I'd perhaps word it as "should expect no special
> consideration regarding".
>

I've crashed at the space quite a few times, usually when i feel too
knackered to cycle home safely.

I've never expected ANY consideration, or given it. Since i tend to
do most of my making at night, it means i'm always making a racket
late.

The camera's shouldn't have been moved though...


Nigel Worsley

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:17:41 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
> I don't think we're interested in a hard limit.
> In its "rules" the Hackspace has always erred on the side of trusting
> people to do the right thing

If we could trust the people causing the problem to do the right thing then
we wouldn't be having this
discussion.

Nigle

Mike

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:28:14 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:33:26AM +0100, Russ Garrett wrote:
> I think we agree there has been too much sleeping in the space. That's
> not what it's for. It makes members uncomfortable to have to worry
> about waking people up, and it doesn't look good to visitors to have
> people sleeping. There is precedence in the Hackerspaces design
> patterns [1].
>
> So, to make this clear, I propose a new rule: "Do not treat the
> Hackspace like your home, it is a shared space. You should not sleep
> in the space."
>
> I think it's worth clarifying exactly what the intention of this rule is:
>
> 1) If you are a member, and you have no way of getting home, you can
> sleep in the space. But you should never plan to do this, and you must
> get up before 09:00 to find your way home.
> 2) If you are a visitor, you may be able to stay at the space for a
> night or two, but you should ask the mailing list first.
>
> Any objections to adding this wording to the rules?
>

I don't think that we need to add this to our minimalist rule section.
My understanding is that they key points are broadly agreed upon:

* This is a workspace not a sleeping space
* If you really do need to sleep here, you may
* You will be playing second fiddle to people working here, if someone
wants to test the Chrysler Air-Raid siren in the room you're sleeping in,
so be it

I think also that formalising rules about when one may sleep makes it
appear more acceptable. I think the guideline should be, if you really
need to sleep here, you may.

Regarding non-members asking permission to sleep here, I think they'd be
best starting by asking the list if anyone can put them up. This seems
to have yielded sucess in the past.

I would advocate against sleeping bags in the space. Again, this makes
the practice appear standard and acceptable.

Finally, given that this appears to be the status quo and that it also
appears not to be working very well at the moment, I think the solution
is to start by reminding people to think long and hard about wether they
really are an exceptional case and for memberse to lean on those that
are taking the piss.

Mike.

signature.asc

Russ Garrett

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:30:20 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

But, to be fair, the "no sleeping" rule was documented nowhere, so
people could truthfully claim that they hadn't heard about it. This is
just a case of making it a little more clear. It doesn't need to be
cast-iron and loophole-free, it just needs to make people aware of it.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Martin Dittus

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:30:39 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

At 300 members I expect a few things to happen:
- not everyone is aware of expected behaviour. At the moment we're not good at educating people. Talking helps here.
- lots of potential for "tragedy of the commons": a few "greedy" individuals use up resources to the detriment of others. I actually thing that partially this is a good thing; 300 members can subsidise all kinds of obscure habits without thinking much about it. I think this is good, and by design. Otoh there clearly are situations where this ends up not working; this is when we need to discuss and invite people to change behaviour, or draw lines.
- "bad" behaviour motivates other bad behaviour (people imitate what they see around them.) Talking helps here as well.

Additionally we're an amazingly tolerant organisation, and everyone thoroughly appreciates that. The side-effect is that sometimes an occasional slip becomes a habit; it is down to every one of us to remind each other of the effects of our behaviour, without being condescending of judgmental.

In short, I think these discussions are necessary for running a healthy organisation.

m.

Monty

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:35:57 AM9/1/11
to London Hackspace
On Sep 1, 12:30 pm, Martin Dittus <deks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it is down to every one of us to remind each other of the effects of our behaviour, without being condescending or judgemental.


Can we make this a rule instead?

Russ Garrett

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:36:07 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 1 September 2011 12:28, Mike <hack...@norgie.net> wrote:
> I don't think that we need to add this to our minimalist rule section.
> My understanding is that they key points are broadly agreed upon:

I do. Trust me, I am anti- adding rules, but this sleeping situation
has been taking up a lot of the Trustees' time and I've been convinced
that it's worth adding a rule. As I said, there are 300 of us, a lot
of people aren't aware of the de-facto no sleeping rule. It usually
falls to the Trustees to "remind" people about it.

> I think also that formalising rules about when one may sleep makes it
> appear more acceptable.  I think the guideline should be, if you really
> need to sleep here, you may.

The rule is "Do not treat the Hackspace like your home, it is a shared
space. You should not sleep in the space." That's not formalising when
people should sleep.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Martin Dittus

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 7:45:37 AM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

On 1 Sep 2011, at 12:36, Russ Garrett wrote:

> On 1 September 2011 12:28, Mike <hack...@norgie.net> wrote:
>> I don't think that we need to add this to our minimalist rule section.
>> My understanding is that they key points are broadly agreed upon:
>
> I do.

I agree with Russ. I think it was an oversight not to add that rule.

Also note that in his email the proposed new rule is only this one sentence; the rest of his email are his comments about the intention of the rule, and will not be added to the Rules wiki page.

"Do not treat the Hackspace like your home, it is a shared space. You should not sleep in the space."

m.

Gausie

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 5:18:22 PM9/1/11
to London Hackspace
If we're going to make a rule (which I really don't think we should
do) then something like "Do not treat the Hackspace like your home, it
is a shared space" is meaningless.

I think expecting noone to go out of their way to aid your slumber
should be enough. A wiki page on sleeping with a few sentences to that
effect should do.

Gausie

On Sep 1, 12:45 pm, Martin Dittus <deks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2011, at 12:36, Russ Garrett wrote:
>

tom

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 5:39:43 PM9/1/11
to London Hackspace
coupled with motion detection on the webcams that sets off an alarm if
people sit still too long, has the added effect of preventing DVT too!

Russ Garrett

unread,
Sep 1, 2011, 8:31:15 PM9/1/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 1 September 2011 22:18, Gausie <s...@gaus.co.uk> wrote:
> If we're going to make a rule (which I really don't think we should
> do) then something like "Do not treat the Hackspace like your home, it
> is a shared space" is meaningless.

Our "rules" are not rules. They are guidelines on how to use the space.

We HATE making rules. Seriously. But there needs to be some way to
tell people that it *is not cool* to sleep in the space. A lot of
people didn't know that, because they weren't told it.

We assume that people are sensible enough not to try and work out
loopholes in our "rules". If you succeed in finding a loophole in the
rules, you are a cock.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Martin

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 4:25:39 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Is that a 'rule', and what do you class as a loophole? surely a loophole is only a loophole if its contained withing less than 3 lines of the rule, if not, then its actually what I would class as a 'gaping hole' and therefore I am not a cock YAY.  I think we should start to make up some hard rules on what constitutes a loophole, and when people can be classed as 'cocks' and then we need to put this in the constitution for the next AGM

tom

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 5:01:01 AM9/2/11
to London Hackspace
they should also be forced to wear hats with "I am a cock" knitted
into them
> > r...@garrett.co.uk

M

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 5:16:36 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I would wear one just for the lol's

--
>
++++++++++[>+>+++>++
+++++>++++++++++<<<<
-]>>>+++++++.>++++++
+++++.+++..---------
.++++++++++.<<+++.<.

Darren Hubbard

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 5:22:23 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

I already have one :P

hamish campbell

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 5:27:20 AM9/2/11
to London Hackspace
+1 on this

Nick Boyle

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 5:47:28 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Perhaps we are missing a point on this ... it's not great that people are sleeping in the middle of everything  .. perhaps, if there is demand, that we set up a couple of capsules? That's quite hackworthy.

tom

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 6:01:40 AM9/2/11
to London Hackspace
I'll get working on them :)

Richard Fine

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 6:19:00 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 9/1/2011 9:33 AM, Russ Garrett wrote:
> I think we agree there has been too much sleeping in the space. That's
> not what it's for. It makes members uncomfortable to have to worry
> about waking people up, and it doesn't look good to visitors to have
> people sleeping. There is precedence in the Hackerspaces design
> patterns [1].

What are the main reasons that people *do* sleep in the space? Maybe
there are other things that can be done to help people employ
alternative behavior - e.g. putting up details of nearby hostels on a
poster somewhere. Difficult to do that without understanding what people
are trying to achieve by it, though.

- Richard

tom

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 6:55:56 AM9/2/11
to London Hackspace
how about train time alarms using GladOS? "warning! tomw has 35
minutes until his last train! get a move on lardass!"

Alec Wright

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 7:03:22 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
I was thinking of making a system a bit like that a while ago.

phil jones

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 7:07:17 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Has anyone consider hammocks?

The advantages of a hammock, to support it you just need a couple of
hooks in the wall. It constrains sleeping to a particular location and
when no-one's using it, the hammock can be quickly taken down, folded
out of sight and out of the way. Plus the person using it isn't
dribbling all over the sofa and public furniture.

phil

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 9:33 AM, Russ Garrett wrote:
>>
>> I think we agree there has been too much sleeping in the space. That's
>> not what it's for. It makes members uncomfortable to have to worry
>> about waking people up, and it doesn't look good to visitors to have
>> people sleeping. There is precedence in the Hackerspaces design
>> patterns [1].
>
> What are the main reasons that people *do* sleep in the space? Maybe there
> are other things that can be done to help people employ alternative behavior

> - e.Couplg. putting up details of nearby hostels on a poster somewhere. Difficult

Nigel Worsley

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 7:37:25 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
> The advantages of a hammock, to support it you just need a couple of
> hooks in the wall

Can we hack the hooks so they release automatically at 9am?

With an override of course, so they can be released remotely :-)

Nigle

Mike

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 7:54:39 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:31:15AM +0100, Russ Garrett wrote:
>
> We assume that people are sensible enough not to try and work out
> loopholes in our "rules". If you succeed in finding a loophole in the
> rules, you are a cock.
>

If you're female and you find a loophole in the rules, does it follow
that you are a hen?

Mike.

signature.asc

Nick Boyle

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 8:05:12 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Just reminded me of the time that I was asleep on one in a public park .. didn't take long for the local youth to figure out how to undo my knots ... I did manage to catch one of them. He wasn't laughing so much then.

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 8:26:24 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
+++ to this idea

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Nigel Worsley <nig...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Richard Fine

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 8:31:59 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 9/2/2011 12:07 PM, phil jones wrote:
> The advantages of a hammock, to support it you just need a couple of
> hooks in the wall. It constrains sleeping to a particular location and
> when no-one's using it, the hammock can be quickly taken down, folded
> out of sight and out of the way. Plus the person using it isn't
> dribbling all over the sofa and public furniture.

That's all true, but I don't think that the lack of an established
sleeping area and drool on the furniture are the things people are
worried about. I'm inclined to agree with the argument that having
things like hammocks in the space will encourage people to sleep in them.

- Richard

Sam Cook

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 8:33:14 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
some what moving away from the initial proposal which was that sleeping at the space should be the exception not the norm. It also does nothing to address the primary problem with sleeping in the space which is that those who do come in when others are asleep will often feel uncomfortable making noise (even if the sleeper doesn't mind) we're British after all, we can't be rude :p

Personally I like the idea of hammocks for comfort (also would be interested in making them) but I think Russ' proposal is pretty solid. 

S

Tim Hutt

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 8:40:22 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 2 September 2011 11:19, Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the main reasons that people *do* sleep in the space? Maybe there
> are other things that can be done to help people employ alternative behavior
> - e.g. putting up details of nearby hostels on a poster somewhere. Difficult
> to do that without understanding what people are trying to achieve by it,
> though.

I suspect people wouldn't "miss their last train" if there was no
option to sleep at the space...

Peter Hicks

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 8:44:44 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:40:22PM +0100, Tim Hutt wrote:

> I suspect people wouldn't "miss their last train" if there was no
> option to sleep at the space...

I can knock you up a big "next trains from Hoxton" sign if you like.
Real-time.


Poggs

Catherine Flick

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 10:14:47 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
This sounds like a cool idea. How about a "last tube from Old Street" as well? :) 

C.

r.j.bra...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 10:19:22 AM9/2/11
to London Hackspace

> I can knock you up a big "next trains from Hoxton" sign if you like.
> Real-time.


This would be excellent.

Also, a hammock sounds like a pretty good idea.

I wouldn't like to see a blanket ban on sleeping in the space. I've
not used the space much so it's not been an issue, but I have a
problem with sudden attacks of sleepiness (not narcolepsy, more like a
migraine, but with exhaustion as the peak instead of headache +
vomiting) and usually when it hits I can flop onto a train and get
home, but sometimes I have to nap before I can manage a train journey.

I know the Hackspace isn't a hostel, but the freedom to have a bit of
a nap occasionally is appreciated.

Also, for those calling for caffeine as the cure-all for sleepiness -
there's those of us that get paradoxically sleepy after drinking
coffee, so it doesn't work for all.

Robin

Nick Boyle

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 10:20:24 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Out of interest, what method are people using for the national rail data at the moment? Resorting to screen scraping?

Tim Hutt

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 11:11:09 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

You have to pay otherwise, but hoxton and old street should have data provided by tfl which is free.

I am strongly against a hammock, since it makes it seem like sleeping there is not a last resort, which it should be. Also it seems like a poor use of our limited space. And it's probably against the tenancy terms.

Russ's suggestion is very sensible.

Peter Hicks

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 11:14:51 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

On 2 Sep 2011, at 15:14, Catherine Flick wrote:

> This sounds like a cool idea. How about a "last tube from Old Street" as well? :)


Timetabled or actual? Can do both!


Peter


Charles Yarnold

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 11:15:11 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 2 September 2011 16:11, Tim Hutt <tdh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am strongly against a hammock, since it makes it seem like sleeping there
> is not a last resort, which it should be. Also it seems like a poor use of
> our limited space. And it's probably against the tenancy terms.

Seconded.

Peter Hicks

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 11:15:32 AM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

On 2 Sep 2011, at 15:20, Nick Boyle wrote:

> Out of interest, what method are people using for the national rail data at the moment? Resorting to screen scraping?


I can't speak for anyone else, but I get my data direct from Network Rail without going through National Rail (ATOC) at all.

*warm fuzzy glow*


Peter


Catherine Flick

unread,
Sep 2, 2011, 4:24:51 PM9/2/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Probably actual is more useful ;D Fantastic!

C.  

Sci

unread,
Sep 3, 2011, 6:32:10 AM9/3/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 02/09/2011 15:14, Catherine Flick wrote:
>
>
> On 2 September 2011 13:44, Peter Hicks <peter...@poggs.co.uk

What about that big fake Nokia phone display? I recall someone saying
all it could do is display static images. Maybe rig it to display a
London Connections map with service status & final trains?

Sci

Geekinesis

unread,
Sep 4, 2011, 7:18:36 PM9/4/11
to London Hackspace
I must admit as a newish member I feel uncomfortable coming to the
space to work during the night or early morning, knowing that people
are regularly sleeping there. The possibility of waking someone up,
with a possible confrontation over the issue, however unlikely, puts
me off.

Its not a hostel or a flat share, its a hackspace isnt it?

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Sep 5, 2011, 4:13:51 AM9/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Geekinesis <geeki...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I must admit as a newish member I feel uncomfortable coming to the
> space to work during the night or early morning, knowing that people
> are regularly sleeping there. The possibility of waking someone up,
> with a possible confrontation over the issue, however unlikely, puts
> me off.

Although there are plenty of reasons for not sleeping in the space, I
don't think this is one you should worry about. I've never yet seen
any confrontation on the issue. You might be worried about waking them
up, but ime they're hard to wake accidentally, and they don't complain
if you make a noise.

-adrian

Nick Boyle

unread,
Sep 5, 2011, 4:48:32 AM9/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Just out of interest, how regular is this? Are we talking at least a different person 4 or 5 nights a week?I am not a regular visitor but a keen supporter, as I live some distance away ... the odd occasion I have thought of it, but knowing my snoring, I wouldn't be that welcome .. :)

Geekinesis

unread,
Sep 5, 2011, 4:54:18 AM9/5/11
to London Hackspace
ok, I had a pet hamster a bit like that. Should we leave bowls of food
out for them incase they are feeling a bit hungry when they wake up?

On Sep 5, 9:13 am, Adrian Godwin <artgod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Sep 5, 2011, 12:51:06 PM9/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Nick Boyle <elyob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of interest, how regular is this? Are we talking at least a
> different person 4 or 5 nights a week?I am not a regular visitor but a keen
> supporter, as I live some distance away ... the odd occasion I have thought
> of it, but knowing my snoring, I wouldn't be that welcome .. :)

Since there's supposed to be no expectation of a peaceful night,
snoring shouldn't be a problem. In fact, if it makes the space a less
attractive place to stay, it could be construed as helpful.

-adrian

Si765

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 5:51:49 PM9/17/11
to London Hackspace

Having read the many posts on sleeping in the space I have seen no
mention of the building lease.
Many comercial leases specificaly prohibit any one sleeping in the
property.
This can be the type of thing a landlord may turn a blind eye too but
will bing up when they want to end a contract early. Can any one
clarify if any conditions exist

Simon

On Sep 5, 9:48 am, Nick Boyle <elyobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of interest, how regular is this? Are we talking at least a
> different person 4 or 5 nights a week?I am not a regular visitor but a keen
> supporter, as I live some distance away ... the odd occasion I have thought
> of it, but knowing my snoring, I wouldn't be that welcome .. :)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Adrian Godwin <artgod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Geekinesis <geekine...@googlemail.com>

Russ Garrett

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 8:34:28 PM9/17/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 17 September 2011 22:51, Si765 <simon....@sls-ltd.com> wrote:
> Having read the many posts on sleeping in the space I have seen no
> mention of the building lease.
> Many comercial leases specificaly prohibit any one sleeping in the
> property.
> This can be the type of thing a landlord may turn a blind eye too but
> will bing up when they want to end a contract early.  Can any one
> clarify if any conditions exist

There are no such conditions in our lease (And I would have pointed it
out if there were.)

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages