[hackerspaces] Inter-Hackerspace Cooperation and Membership

[Adam D Bachman]

Heh, was just about to post my violent agreement with enki's post.

In short: no rules where the cost will outweigh the benefit. Corollary: No
painting the bikeshed.

I see you're looking for something very different, though. "When can [a
non-traditional member] vote at [some hackerspace]" is heavy and deserves
codification for those spaces that believe shared privilege should go so
deep. I trust the people on Node's membership list because I see their name
next to mine on the membership list. At a minimum, I can verify that they
have as much interest as me in the success of the operation, and therefore
their vote has equivalent weight to mine.

Without $$ or location in common, though, trust (and verification) is more
difficult. I'd say at Node, the requirements for the type of shared
membership you describe would be the same as for any other type of
membership. But, of course, I speak for myself, not the space.

Also, our keys are expensive and a pain in the ass to duplicate, so no one
gets a key unless they're vetted and paid.


- Adam
http://baltimorenode.org

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Far McKon <farmckon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm,
> I think part of the confusion is over what 'membership' is. When I
> talk 'or write' about 'membership' I'm taking about things like
> getting keys to a space, voting on proposals, borrowing equipment,
> getting 'member' cost on parts/classes. Getting root access to servers
> run by the space, getting into 'member only' areas, etc. I'm not sure
> if that is what other people mean by 'membership', but I'm not just
> talking about using the Guff (general stuff) at  a space when I visit.
>
> I think everyone is in violent agreement on how to treat visitors.
> But where and when can (for example) can  HacDC vote on a proposal at
> Hive76?  Or what does it take for me to get keys to Alpha One Labs and
> NYCResistor, so I can let myself in anytime?   Is there an GPG style
> trust network I can call on to get root on a server running an awesome
> project in Seattle somehow?
>
> And I don't think a single person on this list *ever* (just scowered
> the back log) said this should be centrally controlled or managed, so
> I think everyone saying 'this should be distributed' (me included)
> are in violent agreement.  Can we mark that line of discussion as
> 'agreed on' and drop it?
>
> Thoughts? Feedback?
>
> hack on, and hoping for feedback,
> - Far McKon
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20100113/1c6e1493/attachment.html>