[hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Wed Nov 18 17:38:29 CET 2015

Interesting.  From what I've heard most folks draw the dividing line
between makerspace / hackerspace on more hardware / manufactory oriented as
opposed to purely code / software endeavours.  I disagree with that for a
couple reasons.

I like the broader general use of the term hackerspace.  Why limit it?  And
Makerspace has some negative connotations, in part due to the 'Make tm'
empire and their control of that sort of branding.  I'd say there are very
definitely more hardware oriented spaces and more software oriented
spaces.  But that's really neither here nor there as far as the results are
concerned.  NYC Resistor has generated plenty of neat software over the
years as well as hardware.  Vice versa with any more software oriented
hackerspaces.

It's really the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that Makerspaces
were some how culturally different from hackerspaces in the way you are
suggesting.  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you are suggesting that
hackerspaces are political in nature, and makerspaces are not?  I suppose
from a CCC perspective I can see how you'd come to that sort of conclusion,
but it's radically bizarre to me and probably most folks in the states.

Where CCC began very much as a political entity, groups like the L0pht and
the Model railroad club did not.  The US has a very fundamentally different
history when it comes to hackerspaces and hacking in general.  To say
nothing of basic cultural dis-similarities.  I think most of the US would
disagree with that sort of dividing line.  In part because most folks
simply don't see politics and hackerspaces as joined at the hip.  But also
because 'Makerspace' already has existing pre-conceptions here that don't
match up with your model.  Probably it's own rich discussion.  Interesting
as hell.

-Matt

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:48 AM, David Potocnik <david.potocnik at gmail.com>
wrote:

> /"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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151118/d0360762/attachment-0001.html>