[hackerspaces] dossier pattern

[David Potocnik]

/"Example:  NYC Resistor has a  no-politics discussion taboo in place.
It's not something members should bring up, as it's not really
relevant to our goals as a community.  And it keeps the space more
accessible to more hackers from more walks of life."/

Without any sense of either grief or superiority towards any of the
organisational forms - I thought (and probably share this with other
EU hackers) that's the very difference between what's called a
hackerspace, or what's not and is then called a makerspace.

To stay on topic, I'd suggest hackerspaces should remain without
dossiers and tightly-knit (if this means less than X members then
fine) with no paper trail, while a makerspace/fab lab/shared workshop
might want something different.

David / Totalism Hackbase (CHT)


On 17 November 2015 at 21:15, matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> As a design pattern this breaks from a community / mutual trust model and
> enters the realm of a public / private access shared space model.  And that
> makes my experience somewhat not relatable.  There are bigger issues at play
> in that sort of model that I simply do not have much experience with from
> the management side.  In a community trust model this isn't really an issue
> at all, as you tend to know everyone and can spot the problem folks fairly
> quickly.  =/
>
> However, we discussed some of this on a recent thread at weaponized
> social...  begins with this email:
> https://lists.aspirationtech.org/lists/arc/weaponizedsocial/2015-11/msg00000.html
>
> It's an interesting discussion.  I think the consensus was that toxic
> membership can only really be solved by excising toxic members.  How that's
> done is not clear, and not simple.  Especially in a situation in which the
> maintainers of the space are less involved in the curation of the community
> and it's members.
>
> I can tell you that I've seen systems used to register complaints be abused
> in the past.  There are some strategies that might act as passive triggers
> on such a person and in turn be used to alert the system to a potential
> malicious string of 'reports'.  But, fundamentally, there is a problem with
> second hand accusations.  All specific complaints should very definitely be
> first hand and focus on what occurred, when, and who can corroborate the
> events.  There's also preventative mechanisms that can be put in place to
> prevent some areas of friction outright.  I discuss in the thread above the
> idea of 'taboo' conversation topics.  Example:  NYC Resistor has a
> no-politics discussion taboo in place.  It's not something members should
> bring up, as it's not really relevant to our goals as a community.  And it
> keeps the space more accessible to more hackers from more walks of life.
> That's of course a pretty specific thing, obviously some spaces have some
> very politically oriented goals so they'd not want that.  But there are many
> hot button issues out there, and my guess is plenty of those issues can
> easily be kept outside the space while improving the overall inclusivity of
> the space.
>
> Anywho... it's an interesting discussion.
>
> More signal less noise, but filters by their nature will cut signal.  Biased
> filters, sometimes do an amazing job keeping your signal clean, but they
> bias the signal.  =/
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ron Bean
> <makerspace at rbean.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Some case studies from over the years
>>
>> My gut reaction is that those people are unlikely to come back.
>>
>> It would be interesting to hear if any other hackerspaces have had that
>> happen.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>