[hackerspaces] dossier pattern
Randall Arnold
randall.arnold at texrat.net
Wed Nov 18 17:47:05 CET 2015
Not to argue with your (valid IMO) points Matt, but let's also keep in mind that
"hacker" has negative connotations outside the culture, ergo many identifying as
Maker to gain more mainstream acceptance.
Not that there's anything wrong with that... ;)
Randy
(oh, and politics killed OUR maker org:
http://texrat.net/tarrant-makers-fall-of-a-foundation/)
> On November 18, 2015 at 10:38 AM matt <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> mailto: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
> > mailto: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
> > > mailto: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
> > >> mailto:Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > > mailto:Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org mailto: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/f433e5e3/attachment.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list