[Noisebridge-discuss] Fundraising and membership at NB, a touch of history

[Rachel McConnell]

Hephaestus, I'd like to summarize for you the discussion far in the past
about the difference between Members (capital M, have legal power) and
members (small m, means whatever anyone says it means but has no legal
standing).  As Sai wrote in greater detail, NB is legally a Membership
organization, where Members are legally able to oust any of the board of
directors if they think we are doing a bad job.

It is unfortunate that the term 'member' was chosen by CA law for this
purpose, because it's almost impossible to think of it in this context
instead of the usual everyday context which is much broader.  It also
may have been a mistake for us to have tried to have everyone that is
seriously interested in Noisebridge be encouraged to join in this
capital M Membership role, but that's due to the ideal of inclusiveness,
not elite exclusiveness.  At the same time, since we decided on a
consensus decision process, it doesn't make sense to bring anyone on in
that role willy-nilly, in case they are there to try to tear us down.
It's not a likely scenario but once they're in, it is hard to kick them
out again!  So we made it a little harder than it might otherwise be to
bring them in.

We already do have the concept of affiliate membership, small m.  You
just start paying some amount you're happy with monthly, and call
yourself that.  Boom, done.  There's Paypal links on the wiki which I
mentioned earlier in this thread.

Anyway, changing the membership process is something that Members can do
at any time, so have at it.  But try to understand first that there
actually are reasons that it is the way it is.  We wrangled on it for
like three months back in late 2008, it kinda sucked, but it wasn't in
any way arbitrary nor elitist.  There is a bunch of discussion on the
mailing list (late 2008) and some on the wiki (you'll have to search)
that I recommend you review before moving too much further with this, in
order that you don't have to hash exactly the same things out again, but
can actually think about new things!

Rachel

Hephaestus wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss