<p>Rule Number one in rule making. Don't solve issues that don't exist. You have enough on your plate. </p>
<p>Deal with situations as they arise. Don't bike shed yourself into a corner. As state earlier, a lot of stuff solves itself organically. When something comes up that needs discussion, discuss it. Until then have some faith in people. </p>
<p>NYCR has no leaders btw. No central committee, politburo, or triumverate of hack. It's generally not necessary. People tend to be pretty good about stuff. I don't understand why anyone would want leaders. It's silly. Personally I find it to be counter productive.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 4, 2010 10:46 AM, "Adam D Bachman" <<a href="mailto:adam.bachman@gmail.com">adam.bachman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> At Node we worked from the stance of: "don't make (me|us) make a<br>
> (rule|policy)". I think we got it from Nick Farr, but the idea is pretty<br>> common. We're not specifically anarchists, but we trend towards<br>> anti-hierarchy, so if we all agree something shouldn't be done (it's common<br>
> sense) then we don't do it. If there's an issue with the landlord ("no<br>> explosions", for example) then we don't do it. If there's an issue with<br>> personal safety or the destruction of someone else's property, then we don't<br>
> do it. (you get the picture).<br>> <br>> rule enforcers<br>> <br>> <br>> This sounds like a recipe for hurt feelings. Inside/outside, us/them<br>> mentalities break down relationships, are probably bad for a functioning<br>
> collective. Unless you're not looking for a collective and want a strong<br>> hierarchy. In that case, make lots of rules and signs and stuff.<br>> <br>> public membership agreements<br>> <br>> <br>
> Ours is here:<br>> <a href="http://wiki.baltimorenode.org/index.php?title=Membership_Agreement">http://wiki.baltimorenode.org/index.php?title=Membership_Agreement</a> . Most of<br>> it is cribbed from somewhere else. Most of it is also only in there because<br>
> it's "official".<br>> <br>> - - - - -<br>> <br>> Probably the hardest thing to get over as a member of a hackerspace central<br>> committee is that other people will want to do and will do things you don't<br>
> want them to do. This is also one of the hardest things to get over as a<br>> parent, btw. At the point you realize that, the best thing to do is get<br>> over yourself and let them do it. Two rules of thumb: pick your battles<br>
> wisely and pick fewer battles.<br>> <br>> If there's a problem with the law (national or local), then the solution is<br>> organic (as in life, not chemistry: solution arises as a natural outcome of<br>
> the cause), they will be caught and punished. If there's a problem with<br>> other people ("damn, I hate it that George burns his hair with a soldering<br>> iron for fun and he's a weirdo") then the solution is also organic, George<br>
> will be cut out of the group and will eventually stop coming. Hackerspaces<br>> are intensely social organizations, social pressure is their most powerful<br>> (or *only* powerful) weapon against internal enemies-of-the-state.<br>
> <br>> More to the point, even if you make a perfect list of rules and add things<br>> to it and put up lots of signs, the only weight it carries is whatever<br>> social pressure the hackerspace can exert. Similarly, anything that is not<br>
> on your list of rules but is enforced via social pressure will be as good as<br>> law (e.g., "the first rule of hackerspace is that you *don't* talk about<br>> Windows in a complementary fashion").<br>
> <br>> The continuum of "more rules!" vs. "it is what it is" has a big fuzzy grey<br>> area in the middle and that's okay. Your space has to find a balance between<br>> "respect your fellow members" and "if you want it done right, do it<br>
> yourself".<br>> <br>> <br>> - Adam<br>> <br>> <br>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Matt lehner <<a href="mailto:mlehner@gmail.com">mlehner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>>> In conjunction with developing the by-laws for Buffalo Lab, I am<br>
>> concerned about having a Membership Agreement and associated AUPs.<br>>> From a managerial point of view it is important to have a common set<br>>> of rules and regulations people can abide by. Though, it seems at odds<br>
>> with the openness of the general hackerspace mentality.<br>>><br>>> As an organization we do not want to be dictating rules at every turn,<br>>> but over the year Buffalo Lab has been operating.. questions about<br>
>> rules and what is allowed has come up repeatedly. We have resorted to<br>>> signs around the space stating DO and DON'T but that can't continue<br>>> forever.<br>>><br>>> What have other hackerspaces done in regards to disseminating rules to<br>
>> members? Is it generally on a case by case basis, or do other<br>>> hackerspaces have a set of rules that all members are aware of.<br>>><br>>> Lastly, enforcing rules seems to be the hardest part of all. Partly<br>
>> because of timing, rule enforcers cannot be at the space 24/7 and not<br>>> all members are comfortable confronting people. But also how is<br>>> fairness handled? Do people use a 3-strike rule or zero-tolerance<br>
>> policies?<br>>><br>>> I know I asked a lot of questions, and some might be answered by<br>>> looking at another space's rules, policies or aup. I quickly scanned<br>>> through the websites of various hackerspaces and did not find many or<br>
>> any public membership agreements to speak of. So if anyone does have<br>>> one, that would be a huge help.<br>>><br>>> Thanks, Matt<br>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Discuss mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>>> <a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><br></div>