[Noisebridge-discuss] Charging for classes at Noisebridge

[Leif Ryge]

On 07/16/2010 04:47 PM, Josh Myer wrote:
> That said, one of my goals in running for-pay classes is to ensure that
> (most of) the people attending are invested in the material.

I expect that free classes funded via a threshold pledge will often end 
up with a majority of the students being the same people who pledged, in 
which case you'd still have that commitment of investment.

Conversely, a difference to consider between a free class where most 
students have actually donated in advance versus a class where students 
are paying for their attendance is what happens with dropouts' money -- 
you mentioned being willing to refund people who change their mind 
partway through your class; if the payments were explicitly *not* for 
the payer's own education, but instead for everyone's, then it would be 
clear that refunds are not required or appropriate.

(I say conversely because I think viewing it from this perspective might 
slightly reduce the connotation of commitment from their investment, but 
hopefully not too much. On the otherother hand, if there are refunds 
offered, one could actually perceive there to be an incentive for 
struggling students to drop out...)

> Another big motivation for me is simplifying governance.  Not adding a rule
> forbidding for-pay classes fits in with our current governance model.

I think that having classes and events be free is a very important part 
of Noisebridge. I feel strongly that if Noisebridge becomes a place 
where there are regularly classes being charged for, it will be much 
less awesome, it will reduce the number of free classes, and ultimately 
it will make Noisebridge something that I am significantly less proud to 
be a part of. I am asking you to please not charge for classes.

I certainly wouldn't support any sort of rule about this, because, as 
with most of the proposed rules which we've discussed, in my view the 
one rule we have already covers this! My definition of Noisebridge 
excellence precludes holding events which exclude people unnecessarily, 
and I think even a "suggested donation" does that to a degree if it is 
strongly suggested. (As a reminder, violators of the anyone's 
interpretation of our one rule are placing themselves at risk of being 
dressed down and/or written up.)

I think it would be fantastic if people could get paid to lead free 
classes at Noisebridge. I think the threshold pledge model can 
accomplish this, and could also even cover material costs sometimes. 
Another idea is that perhaps Noisebridge official funds could be used to 
match these threshold pledges up to some certain amount. (Spending 
official funds requires consensus; any immediate objections? I'll make a 
proposal with some specifics to discuss at next week's meeting.)

>   Roughly, I understand it as "There's one rule, be excellent. There are also
> guidelines: when you see something that's clearly unexcellent, talk to the
> person about it; if it continues to be a problem, bring it up with others/on
> Tuesday."  The last time I was involved in a rules meeting, I was on the
> side of "We need rules."  Sure, we wanted rules to deal with something that
> hadn't happened yet, but it was going to.  In the end, we continued on with
> "Be excellent, speak up," and it's worked astonishingly well**.  I used to
> think this was a recipe for unmitigated irresponsible disaster, but I've
> watched how things have unfolded in the last year, and I'm convinced:
> noisebridgers are a reasonable lot of people.  There have been rough
> patches, but I don't see how having rules would have helped much at all,
> certainly not as much as they could have made things worse.
> --
> /jbm

QFT! :)

~leif