[Noisebridge-discuss] Fundraising and membership at NB

Sun Jun 20 05:39:56 UTC 2010

Could we perhaps find a watery tart to lob scimitars at potential new
members?

m.

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100619/117afa77/attachment-0003.html>