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

Thu Oct 22 15:23:35 CEST 2009

Thanks for the edit!

I said it was the fifth "specific" installment in the series...I'm
actually not sure if Anarchy is going to end up deserving its own
post, I may roll that one into the "Owner" part, or just not write a
post for it.  I suppose we'll see.  Are there any spaces out there
(still functioning?) that would consider themselves part of the
Anarchy model?

I also changed the link!  Congrats on moving to a dedicated server!

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

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 07:03, Koen Martens <gmc at sonologic.nl> wrote:
> Hey Nick,
>
> After a quick read some nit-picking issues:
>
> isn't this part two in the *six* part series?? That is, your
> first post is considered a part as well, isn't it?
>
> More importantly, perhaps you can change the link to revspace
> from https://foswiki.sonologic.nl/RevelationSpace to http://revspace.nl/. We'll
> likely be moving the site to a dedicated server soonish, making the old link
> obsolete-ish..
>
> Gr,
>
> Koen
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:19:15PM -0400, Nick Farr (hackerspaces.org) wrote:
>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>