Timeocracy

Timeocracy is the problem of power imbalances created when people with more available time have disproportionate influence in a community space.

Those who can spend more hours at Noisebridge—whether due to unemployment, flexible work, proximity, or other factors—naturally gain more informal power through:

Physical presence and visibility
Control over physical resources (occupying workbenches, equipment)
Knowledge of informal rules and social dynamics
Ability to speak "for the community"
Influence in consensus processes through sheer availability

This is a DRAFT page collecting references to timeocracy discussions on the wiki and in meeting notes.

References & Theoretical Frameworks

Timeocracy isn't a new problem - similar dynamics have been identified across anarchist organizing, political movements, and commons governance. Here are relevant theoretical frameworks:

Direct Parallels

Iron Law of Oligarchy (Robert Michels, 1911) - Classic political sociology arguing that even in democratic/anarchist organizations, those who can dedicate more time to organizational work inevitably accumulate power and form an oligarchy. Michels was literally writing about time availability creating power structures in supposedly egalitarian movements.

Anarcho-syndicalist organizing and the "permanent delegate" problem - Historical tension in labor movements between shop stewards who could dedicate full-time to union work versus workers who couldn't, creating class divisions within supposedly flat organizations.

Occupy Movement working group dynamics - Well-documented issue where informal power concentrated in people who could attend every meeting, making consensus processes exclusionary despite being theoretically open to all. See also: "The Tyranny of Structurelessness in Occupy"

Feminist & Intersectional Critiques

Feminist critiques of "participatory democracy" - How movements claiming to be participatory systematically excluded people with caregiving responsibilities, childcare obligations, or multiple jobs. Time availability as a form of structural privilege. See: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (Jo Freeman, 1970)

Emotional labor and activist burnout - Some participants can sustain full-time participation indefinitely, others burn out or have competing obligations. Creates inequality in who gets to shape movements.

Vanguardism & Professional Activism

Vanguard party critique - Lenin's "professional revolutionaries" versus workers who had jobs. The very thing anarchists rejected in Marxism-Leninism (full-time activists gaining outsized power over part-time participants) can be recreated through time availability differences without formal party structure.

The "activist career" phenomenon - Movement spaces dominated by people who can make activism their full-time occupation versus those with day jobs, creating implicit hierarchy based on availability rather than contribution or expertise.

Commons Governance

Elinor Ostrom on commons governance - Research on successful commons management emphasizes sustained participation in monitoring and enforcement. But what happens when only some community members can sustain that participation? Time availability becomes a governance bottleneck.

Tragedy of the commons versus "Tragedy of the constantly present" - While Hardin worried about free riders, timeocracy shows the inverse problem: those too present can dominate shared resources.

Power & Authority

David Graeber on constituent versus constituted power - How movements shift from building new possibilities (constituent power) to defending established structures (constituted power). Those constantly present often become the constituted power, even in anarchist spaces.

Informal organization and shadow hierarchies - Sociological research on how informal power structures emerge in formally non-hierarchical organizations. Time availability is a key factor in who gains informal authority.

Related Concepts

Precarity and time - The relationship between housing/economic precarity and time availability at community spaces. RAYC's story illustrates how someone using a space for survival needs may paradoxically gain structural power.

Social capital accumulation through presence - Constant visibility and availability allows rapid accumulation of social capital, trust, and perceived expertise regardless of actual contribution quality.

Anarchy - Structurelessness Creates Hidden Power

The Anarchy page includes extensive quotes from "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" that explain how informal power structures emerge in supposedly flat organizations.

"This means that to strive for a 'structureless' group is as useful and as deceptive, as to aim at an 'objective' news story... A 'laissez-faire' group is about as realistic as a 'laissez-faire' society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others."

The "lucky" here includes those with more available time who can:

Learn the informal rules
Build relationships with other regulars
Establish presence and credibility
Influence the unwritten social dynamics

Noisebridge's Response

The page notes:

And so, as for Freeman's essay (The Tyranny of Structurelessness), the conclusion is actually compatible with anarchist organizing.
She's saying "if you refuse to name your structures, you get tyranny."
Anarchists say "yes! That's why we do name our structures - consensus, do-ocracy, etc. - we just don't make them into permanent positions of authority."

But notably: we don't explicitly name or structure around the timeocracy problem. Do-ocracy assumes equal ability to "do," which breaks down when time availability is wildly unequal.

Related Patterns

Do-ocracy

Do-ocracy ("those who do, decide") interacts with timeocracy in complex ways. It requires time to "do", those with more time can do more (thus decide more), but it also provides a counterweight where contribution matters, not just presence. It can surface the problem when someone is present constantly but contributing minimally.

Consensus_Process

Consensus processes can be vulnerable to timeocracy. Being present for meetings confers blocking power, building consensus requires relationship-building (takes time), understanding when to block vs. stand aside requires cultural knowledge (takes time), and those present more often have more opportunities to shape evolving standards.

Cases from Noisebridge History

Containing_The_Noisebridge_Threat - The "Too Much Time on Their Hands Class"

The only explicit naming of timeocracy as a power structure appears in this satirical essay, which parodies George Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" about containing Soviet power.

From the section on ideological foundations:

"anarchism contains the seeds of its own destruction and must, in view of the inability of the homeless class to adjust itself to economic change, result eventually and inescapably in a revolutionary transfer of power to the Too Much Time on Their Hands class"

The essay continues to describe how power consolidates among those who can dedicate unlimited time:

"For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it was their duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. Then powerful hands of Noisebridge history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling."

The satirical framework makes the structural analysis more digestible - it's easier to see how "time privilege" functions when mapped onto Cold War power dynamics.

Meeting_Notes_2014_08_19 - "Protecting our TIME"

Line 73, Naomi speaking:

Naomi: "this is also a question of protecting our TIME. We waste way too much time on a lot of people we can't seriously accommodate, who demand way more of our time and energy than they bring back to us."

Time itself is a scarce community resource
Some people consume disproportionate community time/energy
There's an implicit exchange calculus: time/energy contributed vs. consumed
The community needs to protect its collective time budget

This is timeocracy from the other angle: not just who has MORE time to spend at the space, but who CONSUMES more of the community's collective attention and emotional labor.

Meeting_Notes_2013_06_04 - "It's weird that people who spend 2 hrs a week here ask me to leave"

This meeting contains the most extensive direct discussion of the timeocracy problem. Context: A person (Dan) who was spending 24/7 at the space was asked to leave, leading to a 2+ hour discussion about time, presence, contribution, and power.

The Core Tension

From the meeting transcript (around 21:49):

mik says "being here too much" is very subjective criteria
more discussion of people spending too much time here. superq and tom sticking toungues out at each other.
"There's no way to put enough into the community to spend 24hrs a day here"

Direct Articulation of Timeocracy Problem

Line 148 captures the heart of the issue:

dan: "it's weird that people who spend 2 hrs a week here ask me to leave"

This is the clearest statement of the timeocracy dilemma: people with less time to contribute feel they have less standing to make decisions about the space, even when addressing problematic behavior.

"You Become the Physical Manifestation of NB"

Line 150, james speaking:

"the thing about spending a lot of time in NB, you become the physical manifestation of NB... NB is a space for anybody but not for everybody. If you think there's a problem, you're probably the problem and you should distance yourself until the problem works itself out"

Recognition that high-time-availability people shape others' perception of what Noisebridge IS. Visitors encountering the space will disproportionately interact with whoever is always there, conflating those individuals with the community itself.

Testing the Limits

Line 156, JC speaking from experience:

JC: "I was homeless and now I have a place to stay. I've spent lots of time at NB and slept here but not lived here. I've tested the limits of what's too much time... if you're here all the time you should be doing *alot*. when i was here all the time i was exhausted. it's not sustainable"

Explicit acknowledgment of "limits of what's too much time"
Recognition that constant presence is not sustainable
Implicit standard: high time presence requires proportionally high contribution
Someone who lived through it recognizes the problem

Resource Occupation

Line 146:

"you and your son are nice and intelligent, but once or twice i could not hack because you were occupying the electronics bench"

Timeocracy isn't just about influence in meetings—it's about physical control of workspace. Those present longer control which benches, which tools, which areas are available to others.

The Broader Context

RAYC (2014) - "He Became Noisebridge"

Robert (aka RAYC) is perhaps the clearest documented case study of timeocracy dynamics at Noisebridge. His story illustrates how unlimited time availability can transform someone into the de-facto embodiment of the space, making it nearly impossible to address problematic behavior.

The Rise: Becoming The Space

From the 86 page:

Was caught living on top of the building's elevator in February-2014, and was banned for 6 months as a warning. He was caught living in the space again in December-2014. It became difficult to trust him. He wore people out in endless discussions with the repeated claim there was some kind of class conspiracy going on within the community. As a result he used up a lot of bandwidth and became severely disruptive to the Noisebridge community. Rayc is no longer allowed in Noisebridge.

Note: RAYC himself was talking about "class conspiracy" - possibly his own awareness of timeocracy dynamics, or an attempt to reframe his situation.

Timeline of Timeocracy in Action

February 2014: Caught living on top of the elevator. Given 6-month ban as warning.

April 2014: Discussion of unbanning RAYC

Key quotes from the unbanning discussion:

John: "One of the big Questions. Is he banned because tom wanted him banned? Was this appropriate? Does anyone think that his behavior was so unexcellent that he should never be in the space again? Rayc isn't the only offender of sleeping in the space."
Adrian: "What is difficult idea to sell that Rayc needs to be held to a higher standard than others in the space. "Please get some sleep and don't be a jerk" is an excellent rider to add to it. If people want rayc on a short leash, they need to convince the people that are here when he is here to do so."
Rayc: "He has become more a mediator, and is helping stop others from over sleeping in the space"

This is timeocracy crystallized: RAYC violated the rules (sleeping), but because he was there so much, he became the one ENFORCING those same rules against others. Adrian explicitly recognizes the double standard but frames it as unavoidable.

Kevin: "When I lost my trust of rayc after a tuesday meeting when he was leaving the space after a tuesday meeting. he was loud, threatening, and drinking. Generally our agreements at this space should be respected, and even if we don't agree with it when still respect our agreements. Rayc has not respected this process."
Dan: "I want to respond to Adrian and Kevin's concern's. Rayc's ban was driving by tom. The idea is that is civil disobedience and rayc needs to work this out with him, and others that want him out."
Naomi: "Rayc should be here listening, and should have to sit through this discussion with us."

The framing as "civil disobedience" is revealing - violating the no-sleeping rule becomes political resistance rather than simply breaking community agreements.

September 2014: Back in the space, moderating meetings

From Meeting Notes Sept 16: "Note-taker: Patrickod; Moderator: Rayc."

This is someone who was banned 5 months earlier for living in the space, now back and moderating Tuesday meetings. Nothing wrong with that in principle - anyone can moderate. But the pattern shows how quickly someone with unlimited time can reestablish presence and authority after supposedly being removed.

December 2014: The Final Ban

From Meeting Notes Dec 16, 2014:

Mitch: "Rayc is someone almost everyone in the community likes but he is now no longer welcome at Noisebridge. We should talk about that."
"Rayc has been doing excellent things for Noisberidge in the last few months."
"Last week, late at night, there was an agreement from Rayc with Kevin and Torrie that he would take a break. He went to sudo room for a day, and then returned."

Even after agreeing to take a break, he returned after one day. Why? Because for someone living at the space, being asked to leave is being asked to become homeless.

The Timeocracy Dynamic

1. Unlimited time availability → He literally lived there (on top of the elevator!)

2. Became "the physical manifestation of NB" to newcomers → As nthmost describes: people who hadn't been around constantly "became seen as just a bunch of fogeys trying to control RAYC who was obviously the only one keeping the space together"

3. Enforced rules he himself violated → From the April meeting: "He has become more a mediator, and is helping stop others from over sleeping in the space" - while living there himself

4. Created structural dependency → From Adrian's comment: "people that are here when he is here" need to be the ones to hold him accountable - but he was always there, so newer people only knew him as helpful/present

5. Made accountability nearly impossible → "almost everyone in the community likes" him + constant presence + doing helpful things = how do you address rule violations?

6. Displacement of actual contributors → People who'd done intensive work (like running the Reboot) but then took breaks found themselves positioned as outsiders when they tried to address his behavior

The Class Conspiracy Claim

The 86 page notes RAYC "wore people out in endless discussions with the repeated claim there was some kind of class conspiracy going on within the community."

He may have been recognizing timeocracy dynamics (class = those with/without time), OR weaponizing class analysis to defend his position, OR correctly identifying that people who'd helped through the 2014 reboot were being displaced by his constant presence.

The user nthmost (who ran the Reboot) describes it: RAYC "would basically hang out at noisebridge ALL THE TIME and rearrange the space and give tours and become everyone's friend. he BECAME Noisebridge-- so much so that people newer to the space, who hadn't just helped it through the hard times of 2014 the way we had, people who were taking a breather, became seen as just a bunch of fogeys trying to control RAYC who was obviously the only one keeping the space together."

This is timeocracy's ultimate victory: the people with less time availability (even those who did massive work during crisis periods like the Reboot) become the outsiders, while the person who is always present becomes the insider, the authority, the space itself.

Why This Matters

RAYC's case shows that timeocracy isn't just about minor inconveniences or hurt feelings.

Structural capture: One person's unlimited time can capture the entire social infrastructure
Authority through presence: Being there constantly confers authority regardless of contribution quality
Impossible accountability: How do you hold accountable someone who IS the space to most visitors?
Displacement of contributors: People who built the space but have limited time become "fogeys" trying to "control" the ever-present figure

The tragic irony: RAYC was both a victim and beneficiary of his situation. Living at Noisebridge likely reflected housing precarity, but that precarity gave him structural power that made it nearly impossible to address his rule violations.

Open Questions

How do we measure or acknowledge time privilege without creating resentment?
Should there be explicit standards for time-to-contribution ratios?
How do we ensure people with limited time availability aren't structurally disadvantaged in consensus processes?
Is it possible to design physical space management to counteract timeocracy effects?
What's the relationship between timeocracy and other forms of privilege (economic, social, technical)?
When does "spending a lot of time here" become a problem vs. a contribution?

Search Methodology

This page was compiled by searching the wiki for direct terms like "timeocracy" and "time-ocracy", phrases like "too much time" / "time on hands", patterns around "who has time" / "available" / "privilege", terms like "clique" / "insiders" / "gatekeeping", patterns about "living" / "sleeping" / "spending all time" / "24/7" at space, and discussions of "representation" / "voice" / "who decides".

The term "timeocracy" itself appears almost nowhere in the wiki (only in the satirical essay). But the concept—power imbalances based on time availability—appears throughout meeting notes, especially in discussions about people spending excessive time in the space, resource allocation (who occupies work areas), community representation questions, and consensus process dynamics.