[Noisebridge-discuss] Fundraising and membership at NB

[Hephaestus]

Wait, really, Christie? "but there's no reason we can't have lots of
exceptions, especially for people who obviously belong like you,
Hephaestus."

That's entirely the wrong attitude to have. Either everybody who
expresses interest in nb should 'belong' at nb, or it's just an
elitest private hacker club.

Considering anybody who wants can currently come to 2169 mission any
time they want for any reason they want, no matter how trollish they
choose to be, no matter how helpful they choose to be, no matter how
many dues they choose to pay (or not), our current membership
procedure is obviously broken.

Waiting 4 weeks doesn't keep trolls away. Waiting 4 weeks only keeps
financial support farther away.

It feels to me like an arbitrary rule designed to make the space feel
more 'elite' than it really is. There's no real incentive to become a
member at this point. All membership adds to your experience at
noisebridge is vastly more drama (meetings, etc) and a high financial
obligation.

If we streamlined the membership process, and only imposed the drama
and high financial obligation on people who wanted to /shape/ the
space, rather than people who might want to incidentally /participate/
in the space, we could greatly increase our membership.

Most people who come to NB would be much happier paying $20/mo without
the added responsibility of 'voting rights'. Four casual 'affiliate'
members would be a LOT easier to get, especially if we streamlined the
membership process to a form on a clipboard (or on the web) and a
laminated ID card after a 5MoF, than one $80/mo member who actively
wants to shape the space for the future.

My suggestions:

1) Introduce and promote 'Affiliate Membership'
2) Allow 'Affiliate Members' with the only obligation being their
first-month-dues instead of 4 weeks of review.

--
Hephaestus

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Sai Emrys <noisebridge at saizai.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I personally don't see
>> any reason why an organization such as ours needs to mechanically follow
>> such a rigid procedure.
>
> IIRC, the concern voiced against allowing this was that it would
> quickly turn into a de facto situation where *not* fast-tracking
> someone was implicitly a negative decision about them.
>
> Given that decisions seem to currently be made on the basis of "they
> seem cool enough" I don't really see much point in having such a
> strict membership policy in the first place... except for the inherent
> problem that consensus does not scale or tolerate trolling / obstinacy
> well. I suspect that if this were not an issue, having more open
> membership would not be either.
>
> - Sai
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>