<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
</div></div>*** The "benevolent dictator" model has served the community pretty<br>
well so far, especially as benevolent dictators have kept their tasks<br>
to a minimum of involvement with community decisions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I would argue two points here.<br><br></div><div>1. The is inherit risk in the benevolent dictator model. These cannot be addressed or minimized. And they prevent active contribution and growth daily simply by existing. And the benevolent dictator model is definitively non-sustainable.<br>
<br></div><div>2. What is <a href="http://hackerspace.org" target="_blank">hackerspace.org</a> but a shared resource? It is a shared map, wiki, and mailing list today. But at it's heart it is a shared resource of the hackerspaces communities of the world. I would argue that as a shared resource it is not a very good one. In fact, I'd be willing to say that aside from the map, there's not much use or by in on any other shared resource hosted by <a href="http://hackerspaces.org" target="_blank">hackerspaces.org</a>.<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think the question raised is not whether or not we should create a<br>
foundation, or if there's an abuse of power, etc., but what happened<br>
that stalled in the community, and how to fix that.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I disagree here. You want to make this about reactive engineering. You want to isolate an existing issue and squash it. What I am suggesting is that we take a pro-active engineering approach and look at what the project goals are, define them, and see if we cannot achieve them better. <br>
<br></div><div>When you start reacting to issues instead of engineering toward a goal you end up mired in technical and bureaucratic debt. You end up making bad decisions. You end up tripping over yourself. This is a piss poor design pattern.<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As I can see it, the main agitators of the movement have been busy<br>
with other things. When one is taking on herself to take on the role<br>
of locomotive, it's normal to expect a relay at some point.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If the main agitators of the movement are inactive they are NOT the main agitators of the movement. If there are custodial positions held by the inactive they need to go. There is no clearly defined methodology for enforcing that in a continuous and iterative process.<br>
<br></div><div>This is unacceptable from the design patterns of do-ocracy / meritocracy.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It seems to me that a lot happened in the last few years that affected<br>
a lot of people. It sounds silly to say, but indeed, the global crisis<br>
seems to have affected the attention patterns within the hackerspaces<br>
community. It would be too simple to reduce the stall to just that,<br>
but I bet a lot of us have been feeling it. It's not only the<br>
financial crisis, but the moral, civic, and ethical crisis. Hackers<br>
wanted to become public, and that happened big time; but on a darker<br>
side, hackers have been targeted as terrorists; and commercial venues<br>
engulfed in the breach <a href="http://hackerspaces.org" target="_blank">hackerspaces.org</a> created; and yada yada.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is off topic. I get that there's a lot going on when you look at the hacker tag cloud, but let's focus on the objectives of <a href="http://hackerspaces.org">hackerspaces.org</a>. It's not a moral authority. It's not a defender of all hackers. It's not going to save the world or cyberspace or the gibson. All it is, is a shared resource repository for hackerspaces. If it can be more than that, it starts by limiting scope to a specific mission. <br>
<br></div><div>You start trying to be everything to everyone and you end up the least common denominator and a miserable failure.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Jake made it clear in the keynote he gave at 29C3 that we need to<br>
cooperate more. Yet, this discussion that sparked out of a frustration<br>
and misunderstanding, and was quickly deflected to something<br>
constructive, seems to fade away from the core topic of cooperation,<br>
and the lack of it. Are we not able to reflect on our failure to<br>
communicate, or sustain cooperation? Or is there no such interest<br>
anymore? Or is it just a personal itch that is barely shared with the<br>
rest of the community? Or is there no community, and <a href="http://hackerspaces.org" target="_blank">hackerspaces.org</a><br>
is just a list of hackerspaces?<br>
<br></blockquote><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">You keep expanding the scope. It's not relevant. It has no place here. Hackerspaces are small communities. Fostering greater collaboration sure. Trying to push people into a specific agenda... NOPE.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">This is not a political movement. You want to start one? go right ahead. Or heck join one of the MANY available today. But don't try to co-opt <a href="http://hackerspaces.org">hackerspaces.org</a> for your agenda.<br>
<br><br></div>-Matt<br></div></div>