[hackerspaces] Dealing with micromanagement of hackers

[Edward L Platt]

It sounds like the member in question is doing the *opposite* of
micromanaging.  If you want to take members' opinions into account, some
level of bureaucracy is inevitable and the goal should be more effective,
rather than less (or more), bureaucracy.  Or, if you have strong central
leadership that gets to make decisions, that works to.  I can't tell which
model you're striving for.

Also, PSA: if you don't like meetings, committees are your friend!  You get
to say "hey everyone who cares about X, go hash it out in a focused session
and bring back a concise report for everyone."  Then if someone wants to
derail a general meeting with it, you can say "If you really care about
this issue, go join the committee."  Way more efficient than having
everyone sit through discussion about everything.

-Ed


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Bert Hartmann <berthartm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Torrie,
>
> I don't know anything about your space, so this is all pure speculation on
> my part, but if you don't have enough consensus to pass a budget, perhaps
> you do need to open up the discussion to more people until they're
> comfortable with the result? If you do have consensus, then it shouldn't be
> an issue, and just approve the budget and move forward.
>
> I know in New Jersey the law requires our non-profit to have an annual
> meeting with all the members about this time of year, where we
> traditionally pass a budget for the year, among other things. Perhaps a
> similar type of meeting for your group is healthy, so that no matter what
> process develops the budget (1 man and a spreadsheet or 20 people in 20
> meetings) there's a hard and fast deadline everyone's working towards so it
> doesn't get out of control and you end up with a workable result to present
> the rest of the group (who will presumably keep on hacking despite it).
>
> Incidentally, to answer your last question: I've seen the role of the
> board as handling all the bureaucratic stuff (rent, government filings,
> cleaning the bathroom, budget negotiations) so that the hacking may go on
> unimpeded for everyone else. Some of it's unavoidable, the trick is just to
> minimize the impact to the organization at large and the members in
> specific.
>
> my 2 cents,
> Bert
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi, discuss@!
>>
>> Lately at my hackerspace, we've had a member who is very interested in
>> micromanaging the space. I'm currently both treasurer and AWS sysadmin for
>> synhak.org, where I proposed a budget to use some grant money we
>> received to
>> secure 3 year funding of our infrastructure.
>>
>> Time and time again, this member in question wants to form a committee or
>> some
>> equally stifling bureaucratic structure to analyze any change to the space
>> under the guise of "investigating all the options".
>>
>> Micromanagement like this is totally against our culture, but it seems
>> that
>> there are one or two others who go along with it because it "makes sense".
>>
>> Whats the best way to kill bureaucratic micromanagement and protect the
>> hacker
>> ethos at a space?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Edward L. Platt
http://elplatt.com
http://civic.mit.edu/users/elplatt
http://i3detroit.com
@elplatt <http://twitter.com/elplatt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140226/32dcd799/attachment.html>