[Noisebridge-discuss] Fundraising and membership at NB

[Christie Dudley]

I made comments inline.  It really disturbs me that the major thrust of this
discussion boils down to "we should do something we're already doing".  That
much more argument for maintaining the 4-week waiting period for
membership...

But please read on.  There's a lot of discussion in here that I think is
great to have.

Christie

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Hephaestus <hephaestus at antipunk.net>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."
>

I don't necessarily agree.  There have been people who have showed up to
Noisebridge expecting it to be something it's not.  The most common of these
is folks who are up from Hacker Dojo who expect us to pretty much be a
business-y startup support group, or some other coworking space on the
cheap.  They really don't fit in, and the best that happens is they find a
coworking space that fits their needs instead of trying to change us into a
coworking space.

There are other random expectations from Noisebridge I've seen over time:
 Expectations that we're a "community resource" for people who want to have
something or other fixed for free comes to mind.  (They actually stuck
around a while trying to cajole various people into doing the (quite boring)
work they needed done.)  Don't even get me started about the DIYBio people
and the bad communication surrounding that.

I am really opposed to inducting people into our organization who don't
really understand how we work.  I can't count the number of times someone
came along and started insisting we use XYZ solution to solve a perceived
problem they had.  The time lag allows them the opportunity to either get
bored with the notion of "fixing" us, or understand what's going on better
so what they can contribute is meaningful.  (These fixes invariably involve
making new rules (ahem) which are either duplicating decisions that have
already been made or entirely unenforceable.)

I am not opposed to including these people, as we have, in everything.
 However, as Rachel so carefully pointed out, it's pretty much impossible to
remove someone's membership, so if someone comes in and starts breaking
things, figuratively or literally

Also, by having a lot of people with only passing interest on the books who
we collected only a month's dues from is not only administrative overhead,
but a real issue when it comes to choosing directors and stuff like that.
 Just check out the back of the binder with all the sheets in there of
people who put their name in and stopped showing up.


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

This is a good point.  Hm... an interesting trick would be to ask people to
put their money where their mouth is and put down dues for the month they're
being considered for membership.  They're not officially on the books until
there's a consensus, so we don't have to deal with them that way.  They get
to listen and learn about how we work, with limited participation in the
process while they figure out how it works... more like an apprenticeship
period.

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.
>

We've spoken at length about making sure that we remain an open organization
where everyone can become a member.  The issue centers around education.  It
takes time to learn about how we function, and some people, upon learning of
this, choose to leave.  It's regrettable, but it happens.

There have been hot debates about specifically voting vs. consensus.  It
takes some people quite some time to get that part, but a lot of us existing
members are really adamant about remaining a consensus organization to
protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.  We've lost more
than one or two over that, but I don't regret that.  I'm appalled at the
politics that arise when every member doesn't have a voice.


> 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.
>

No, not 'elite', but rather 'intact'.  Unless we were sure to pass on our
understanding of the organization to new members, it'd become unrecognizable
in a very short amount of time, particularly with our lack of codified
rules.

Like in this discussion.  I'm glad we're having it.  There's a lot of stuff
that you're raising that hasn't been brought up in a long time and should be
discussed.


> 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.
>

Yes... shape vs. misshape.  We need to be sure that those that will shape it
will do so in a direction we want to go.

I fail to see how inducting most members faster will significantly increase
our numbers.  It seems to me what you're advocating is bringing in people
who are not interested in just participating for a while before they dive
into shaping things.  That makes me extremely nervous.  A lot of us have
seen organizations collapse because of an influx of new people with
radically different and unworkable ideas of what the organization should be
who force the old members out and pretty much break the toy.  A lot of us
are heavily invested in Noisebridge, both financially and time-wise. (Many
of us old-schoolers have not only been paying dues for our membership
period, but have donated significant sums of money.)


> 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.
>

Dude!  This already exists.  Do we need membership cards?  If you want to
become an affiliate member, just click the link, pay your money, and you're
an affiliate member.  I think it's actually codified somewhere.


> My suggestions:
>
> 1) Introduce and promote 'Affiliate Membership'
>

I think you're right in the notion that we should promote it.  Perhaps
moving those buttons to the front page of the wiki is in order.


> 2) Allow 'Affiliate Members' with the only obligation being their
> first-month-dues instead of 4 weeks of review.
>

Did you miss what we've been saying?  Affiliate memberships have existed
over a year.  People don't care about them because the critical point is the
consensus rights to membership.
_______
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The
latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to
hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
-- Albert Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100619/ff7e12d0/attachment-0003.html>