[hackerspaces] What form of organization does your hackerspace use?

Thu Oct 22 05:19:15 CEST 2009

Thanks everyone for your insight!  I just posted the article:

http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2009/10/20/hackerspaces-money-the-board/

I think this thread also brought up other issues which are important
to address and emphasize, especially Koen's point:

"Anyway, all this discussion about boards and organisation forms etc
might lead you to think that it is all about that. In fact, it is not.
Once set up and organised, the board is basically only responsible for
collecting membership dues and collecting the rent. And that's it. The
rest is the fun part: projects, social events, etc..!"

Perhaps in a brief aside from this series, an article on the nature of
membership in hackerspaces?

Nick Farr / http://nickfarr.org
Washington, DC, 20013-1208 | +1 (707) 676-FARR | Fax: +1 (866)
536-2616 | 8B13F204
Sent from Washington, DC, United States

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:44, nicolle <superherogirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> you make a very good point about the creative direction of the hackerspace
> versus the management and legal direction.
>
> i'm not on the board of directors of my hackerspace, but as my space's legal
> advisor i work closely with them.  the way our bylaws are drafted, there is
> very little authority actually given to the board of directors for much of
> anything: creative or managerial.  however, that may be reassessed or
> tweaked, since it seems rather impractical.  we still want the members to
> have as much say as possible in what goes on.  but, practically speaking, it
> ends up being the board of directors dealing a lot more with the managerial
> stuff, and the membership dealing more with the creative direction.  yes, we
> do have some members who are extremely interested in the managerial aspects
> of the space, but they usually come and voice their opinions at the
> directors meetings (which are weekly, before the membership meetings, and
> open to everyone), since that's where the meat of the discussions on such
> matters occurs.   the board of directors does very little, on the other
> hand, about the creative direction of the space...what projects get done,
> and how the infrastructure is built out to do that, never falls to a
> directorial vote.  if there's a critical mass among the members to start an
> area or a project, it just sort of happens.
>
> i can't say we've completely solved this tension or found the best middle
> ground for it, though, and i really like this thread because it's letting me
> know how other hackerspaces are dealing with similar growing pains.  we're
> soon revising our bylaws, and i want to make sure that it doesn't take too
> much power out of the hands of the membership, but still reflects the
> board's heightened involvement in the managerial and legal issues--both
> because they are legally obligated to make sure it's well-run, and because
> it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to force all of the members, many of
> whom aren't all that interested in the day-to-day boredom of keeping a
> nonprofit running, to vote on every little day-to-day issue.
>
> nicolle
>
>
>
> Seth Hardy wrote:
>>
>> one thing to consider that, as someone who was on the board of a
>> hackerspace, i found frustrating:
>>
>> it's all well and good to say "the board has no special powers, we should
>> be a one tier membership system." however, in certain cases (such as when
>> the hackerspace has incorporated and taken on legal responsibilities under
>> the corporation name), the board has additional legal and financial
>> responsibilities over the rest of the members. these responsibilities
>> include ways they are legally obligated to act, as well as the liabilities
>> if something goes wrong.
>>
>> the creative direction of the space should be advanced by the members, but
>> (for example) if someone's name is on the lease, they probably should have
>> additional authority or "special powers" (but only as much as is necessary!)
>> to enforce their additional responsibility and minimize their additional
>> liability.
>>
>> if you want to avoid thinking of it as "special status," keep the
>> management and legal obligations separate from creative direction. the
>> latter can still be run by the members and coexist with the possibility of
>> "this smaller group of people can kick you out if you light shit on fire
>> inside." if people act reasonably, the board will never have to act with
>> this kind of authority.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 06:17:56PM +0200, Koen Martens wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:48:48PM +0200, quemener.yves at free.fr wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think where we'll end up is a board model with heavy membership
>>>>> consultation.  So about halfway between board and membership, I
>>>>> guess. That's just my feeling, though.  Hard to tell.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have been pondering this a bit, if the hackerspace in Grenoble ever
>>>> kicks off, what about the structure ? I think most problems comes from the
>>>> perceived hierarchy between board members, regular paying members and
>>>> occasional members. I wonder if a system would work where you would consider
>>>> the "board" (namely the management of the space, the legalities, the
>>>> inventory, etc...) as a project like all the others, where people are
>>>> welcome to contribute or not.
>>>> I tend to value more the group of people and the set of projects and
>>>> consider them independent of the physical space itself. If a space fails for
>>>> any reason, the projects can survive through transplantation somewhere else.
>>>> Maybe this opinion comes from the fact that we don't have a permanent
>>>> space yet here and that we are all somehow trapped inside a medium-sized
>>>> city. But I wonder... There is this kind of hierarchical feeling that the
>>>> managers of the physical space are the bosses of the group, I wonder if it
>>>> is unavoidable. Sure they can veto some projects happening in their
>>>> facilities (no amateur pyrotechnics here !) but there is no reason to give
>>>> them any power to anything not related to the physical space management.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about this approach ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see the whole board-thing as a necesarry evil, but want to avoid giving
>>> the board
>>> members any special status whatsoever. It is exactly this hierarchical
>>> thing that may
>>> lead to what I described earlier, where the board will have more and more
>>> work and
>>> the membership becomes an apathic bunch. In my eyes, board members are
>>> just participants
>>> who get to do some of the more boring stuff.
>>>
>>> There's some questions about accountability that i'm sidestepping here
>>> though, who is
>>> responsible if you all decided you _will_ have a pyrotechnics workshop in
>>> your space
>>> and people get hurt?? You can have members sign a waiver, but what about
>>> neighbours? If
>>> it comes to that, they will probably look at the board and sue the board,
>>> not the members..
>>>
>>> Anyway, all this discussion about boards and organisation forms etc might
>>> lead you to
>>> think that it is all about that. In fact, it is not. Once set up and
>>> organised, the board
>>> is basically only responsible for collecting membership dues and
>>> collecting the rent. And
>>> that's it. The rest is the fun part: projects, social events, etc..!
>>>
>>> Gr,
>>>
>>> Koen
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>