[Noisebridge-discuss] Fundraising and membership at NB

[Elizabeth Sarah Quirk Goodman]

Suggestion: You become a member when you pay dues, and remain one if
you keep paying most months.

More at length: The last organization I was in that was anything like
Noisebridge (though more like a gamerspace than a hackerspace, and
with fewer dues as we have fundraisers and no necessary costs) had
basically the policy "you are a member if you buy membership by paying
dues".  So we could in theory have a policy like that--or, since we
don't want to punish people for occasionally forgetting and we accept
a "starving hacker" rate, one could pay dues and remain a member so
long as one did not miss as many as 6 months out of the year (I would
suggest even if that is at starving hacker rates).  It would cost more
administrative overhead but it would make the voting membership
entirely self-selecting and current.

Or, you know, one could come to Noisebridge and eat n pomegranate
seeds to be a n-month member, but that's a stupid joke I'm only making
because it insisted.

Quirk
P.S. In theory I'm interested in supporting any fundraising efforts
others make or meetings on all this, but my summer schedule is too
off-and-on to make it a good idea for me to influence the timing of
anything.
P.P.S. Jonathan Foote: I paid a month's dues before membership too.
Go eager n00bs!

2010/6/20 Mikolaj Habryn <dichro at rcpt.to>:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>