[hackerspaces] Vetting new members

[Paul Böhm]

metalab had a reverse vetting process - anyone can become a member by
handing a board member a membership form IRL and paying their dues
(eur20/mo), but within 3 months the board can withdraw the membership
should problems arise. after 3 months a more formal process with
members voting is required to get rid of someone. only members get a
key (tho not every member gets a key - only those who've contributed -
about 50% = 70 ppl have a key right now), which is a strong incentive
for people to become new members and contribute.

noisebridge on the other hand requires members to be voted in at a
meeting unanimously, which (is intended to) limits the memberbase.
however to make up for that, they hand out keys rather freely (also to
non-members).

both seems to work. personally i'm in favor of optimizing for the most
common case (new members are awesome and welcome), because i've come
to think that growth shouldn't be artificially hindered or slowed. if
the space can offer more infrastructure to more people, in general you
also attract more cool people that you'd otherwise miss.

enki

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM, nicolle<superherogirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> At Pumping Station: One, in Chicago, we don't have a formal vetting
> process.  One of our core principles is that anyone aged 18 or older is
> free to become a member of our organization.  Therefore, if someone
> hears about us, comes by, likes what they see, and pays the monthly
> membership fee, they get a key and get 24 hour access to our space.
> (Right now it's physical keys, although we're hoping to implement key
> cards soon.)
>
> We have had a physical space for about two months now, and it's working
> out nicely.  Of course it's a risk to allow such open access to the
> space, but it's a calculated one in my opinion.  Under our model, the
> core benefit of being a member is not just access to the space, but
> twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week access to the space.  There's
> no such thing as a member without a key.  Our space is big enough that
> it can accommodate the number of members who join under our open policy,
> and doing it any other way would violate our intent to involve as many
> new and interesting people in the hackerspace as possible.
>
>
> nicky
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Powell wrote:
>> We are a new hackerspace in Maryland, USA so we don't have a whole lot
>> of experience. We have discusses this issue and basically it came down
>> to all the existing keyholders must vote in private on weather to
>> allow or deny a member to right to have 24/7 access. With that said we
>> don't actually have a 24/7 facilility available to us yet so we have
>> not given out any keys. When the time comes that we do have 24/7
>> access the board members will have keys and the charter members will
>> also have keys. Currently there are 5 of us putting everything we have
>> into forming our hackerspace. Those 5 will be considered charter
>> members and will ultimately be who gets to decide who else has a key.
>>
>> Not every member needs a key. You need to be careful who you hand them
>> out to. If you have a member who really needs 24/7 access I'm sure
>> they will let you know that they tried to access the building but
>> nobody was there. At that time you could offer to motion for a vote on
>> their behalf amoungst the other keyholders.
>>
>> I would not hand out a key to a new member. We have discussed
>> requiring background checks before providing keys. This is easily done
>> in 5 minutes for free in Maryland using the courts website.
>>
>> One thing you may also want to implement is a quarterly inventory of
>> the keys. Mark each members key with a number and possibly with a do
>> not duplicate message. Then every quarter ask to physically see their
>> key. If they don't have it then it may be time to change the locks.
>>
>> Finally, I've toyed with the idea of not having a key at all. There
>> are plenty of inexpensive electronic locks. This will allow you to
>> keep a log of who accessed the building and when. It would also allow
>> you to setup a system where you can remotely allow a member to enter.
>> So they may not need full access but they may need to call someone and
>> request use of the building before entering.
>>
>> Discuss this over with your members and see what they are comfortable with.
>>
>> On 6/17/09, Eric Gerlach <eric+hackerspaces-discuss at gerlach.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of you may have seen me asking this question on IRC over the last
>>> few days, so if you're one of those people, my apologies for the
>>> duplicate communication.  Feel free to respond anyways :-)
>>>
>>> I'm working with a group in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada to build
>>> a new hackerspace.  One of the debates we're having right now is about
>>> vetting new members.  I'm really interested in what other spaces are
>>> doing.
>>>
>>> Specifically, I'm interested in what a person has to do to become a
>>> member of your organization and get 24/7 access to the space (if you
>>> allow that), and what you feel the advantages and disadvantages to your
>>> approach are.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your help.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Eric
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "A developed and decent man cannot be vain without a boundless exactingness toward himself and without despising himself at moments to the point of hatred."
> Notes from Underground
> by Fyodor Dostoevsky
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>