[sudo-discuss] jake's idea for sudoroom membership structure

Sat Sep 14 19:04:55 PDT 2013

something that might help would be to outline the actual questions that any
potential proposal should answer...we have top-level questions outlined at
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Sudo_room/membership but not the
specifics..things like what eddan raised.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I hope that others will step up to answer these questions as to what they
> believe would be right for sudoroom.  My personal answer is:
>
> the membership decides.  Whether we decide things based on consensus
> (problematic because it doesn't define whether consensus is required to do
> something or to prevent it), or some form of voting, is a larger discussion
> where we need to brainstorm the advantages and disadvantages of the
> different styles.  For example, if we do voting, will we try to do ranked
> choice?  Should we have different voting percentages for different issues?
>  What happens when the group is cleanly split along a percentage line, is
> there a tiebreaker?
>
> I agree that there are a lot of decisions to be made, sort of like trying
> to compile your own kernel, and being asked a million questions.  But at
> the same time, even copying a popular bylaws structure from a template or
> existing organization would be a great improvement from what we have right
> now.  I claim that what sudoroom has right now is a moment of good weather
> and luck, and an opportunity to create a structure that will last a long
> time.
>
> - -jake
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013, Eddan Katz wrote:
>
>  Jake. Thanks. As always, this is really helpful. I was hoping though if
>> you could elaborate on (1) who decides; (2) in what circumstance; (3) by
>> which process. I think that too often people ignore the (1) who decides -
>> part of the equation; and in regards to diversity, inclusion, and openness
>> - I think it's a key factor.
>>
>> Janelle Orsi of SELC used the phrase "The Tyranny of Structurelessness"
>> in her workshop the other day. This notion strikes an important chord to
>> think about as we continue to evolve.
>>
>>
>> sent from eddan.com
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>
>>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>> i confess i have no idea how to properly edit the membership wiki to add
>>> my ideas.
>>>
>>> So i will just type them here, and maybe someone can help me put them
>>> into the wiki properly.
>>>
>>> Sudo room/membership
>>> Do we have it?
>>>
>>> I think sudoroom does not currently have a membership structure in
>>> place. We are currently existing in a (most of the time) benevolent
>>> anarchy, resulting from equal parts luck, hard work by caring people, and
>>> security by obscurity.
>>>
>>> I think we SHOULD have membership, which is clearly defined and binary
>>> (either you are a member in good standing, or a nonmember for whatever
>>> reason).  There should be a list of members which can be publicly accessed,
>>> with enough information about each member that they can be identified by
>>> any member (a description or picture provided by the member themselves)
>>> since we don't all "know" each other.
>>>
>>> I think membership should be something that is in exchange for ONGOING
>>> contribution to the community, as defined (continually) by the
>>> membership, on a person by person basis.  For example, $10 per month might
>>> be accepted by one person as sufficient, but another person might be
>>> required to pay $40 per month.  Or the group can decide that a persons
>>> offer to "clear and sweep the floor once a week" is sufficient.
>>>
>>> Also the community should be able to refuse someone's membership, even
>>> if they are a current member who has been making their required
>>> contribution. Also the community should be able to change the requirement
>>> from a person based on information from them or anyone, to a higher or
>>> lower or different requirement.  The community should be able to declare
>>> that a person has not fulfilled their requirement and is, until they return
>>> to that requirement, temporarily not a member.
>>>
>>> Does it [membership] confer special privelages?
>>>
>>> I think that membership should confer special privelages including
>>> access to the space even if it is closed, for any community-approved uses.
>>>  A member can be there when no one else is there if they want to be.  Also
>>> while anyone can participate in discussions at meetings, only members can
>>> vote (or block consensus items).
>>>
>>> I think a member should be able to "sponsor" a nonmember (or multiple of
>>> them) WHILE they are present in the space.  This way nonmembers can use the
>>> space any time a member who supports them is present, which should be easy
>>> for nonmembers who use the space properly in a cooperative way.  And for
>>> all nonmembers wanting to use the space, their sponsor can help them use
>>> the space properly.
>>>
>>> I think that nonmembers should be nominally granted up to 24 added-up
>>> hours of access to the space without a specific sponsor.  This part is
>>> subtle and I urge people to think about the total effect of this "pseudo
>>> policy" before objecting.  If a nonmember behaves badly before they have
>>> used up 24 hours they can be asked to leave by a member, of course.  And if
>>> a nonmember behaves well it is likely that no one will even point out when
>>> their "24 hours" appears to have expired.
>>>
>>> are there expectations of members, do they have responsibilities?
>>>
>>> I think that all members should promise not to leave the space open
>>> without a member present.  This means that when an awesome nonmember is
>>> working on a project and you're the last member and you want to leave, you
>>> have to decide between staying to help them or asking them to return when
>>> the space is open.  It is also a good time to remind them that by
>>> contributing in a community-approved way, they can have 24-7 access.
>>>
>>> One reason for members making this promise to each other is because
>>> members have accountability to one another, and were approved at a meeting,
>>> and can be contacted with questions by other members, and can be trusted.
>>>  However that trust does not extend to strangers and we must respect the
>>> process of meetings and accountability when we are not present to act as an
>>> advocate or translator for a nonmember we want to support.
>>>
>>> Some practical reasons for not allowing nonmembers in the space alone
>>> include security of property and materials, projects and tools.  But also,
>>> the organization of the space and functionality of it is tied to human
>>> effort to make it a usable space.  People who are members are contributors
>>> to the space in one way or another, and they contribute toward the
>>> usability of the space.  It isn't fair to our fellow contributors to allow
>>> others to use and take from that space when we ourselves are not willing to
>>> supervise our own guests' use of the space.
>>>
>>> How do you become a member?
>>>
>>> People who want to become a member of the space must meet members of the
>>> space and learn about membership and the space.  They need to announce to
>>> the membership, through the discuss list, that they want to become a member
>>> and answer responses to their post so that members who might come to a
>>> meeting will be satisfied with their reasons for wanting to join. Also, use
>>> of the mailinglist demonstrates a basic ability to communicate and be
>>> accountable to other members in case they are accepted.
>>>
>>> After making their desires known, they will come to meetings to get to
>>> know people, and announce that they would like to become a member.  They
>>> can discuss with the group what kind of contribution they feel comfortable
>>> making, based on their income or free time levels, and in the case of
>>> nonmonetary contributions, how they propose their contributions be tracked
>>> (could be an email declaring that they cleaned the space at 3PM today and
>>> saw certain members there who saw it happen)
>>>
>>> I think that we should not do like noisebridge and expect a secret
>>> discussion, or expect a specific timeline for consideration of membership.
>>> If a person makes their bid for membership on the list and shows up to the
>>> nearest meeting after that, they should not expect to achieve membership
>>> for at least another week while the possiblity for objections is there. At
>>> their first meeting the announcement having been made, one week should be
>>> sufficient time for the membership to bring out any uncertainties.
>>>
>>> If a person is a member of the space, they should not have any less
>>> accountability to the space than a nonmember (on the contrary).  This means
>>> that a member can be discussed at a meeting for questionable behavior and
>>> if necessary, have their membership revoked by the group. Consensus Minus
>>> One would be nice for this purpose but is too limiting in practice, because
>>> we hackers tend to be contrary and side with the underdog to a fault.  If a
>>> large portion of the membership agrees that a person is not a good fit for
>>> the space, the minority should not ask them to put aside their discomfort
>>> without convincing them of the reasons in dialogue.
>>>
>>> Why is this necessary?
>>>
>>> As I said in the beginning, i feel that sudoroom is riding on a streak
>>> of luck and hard work at the moment, and that we can't expect this to
>>> continue in the face of entropy.  We already have and will continue to see
>>> abuse of the space by people who have no feelings of accountability, and
>>> our members have no recourse or policy to address anything like that.  I
>>> know from experience what results from this, and it is sad.  The failure of
>>> Sudoroom would not be a sufficiently educational experience to justify
>>> allowing it to happen, when the lessons we would learn have been offered so
>>> many times in other places.
>>>
>>> We talk about the challenge of diversity in a hackerspace like ours.
>>>  One thing we don't seek is diversity of people who are good and bad for
>>> what we're trying to do.  We do not invite drug dealers to sudoroom to sell
>>> meth to people from the street outside, even though it would please them
>>> greatly if they could use our space.  We don't invite meth addicts to
>>> browse our hacking materials shelves to find copper and aluminum to recycle
>>> so they can buy more drugs.
>>>
>>> We also should not invite people to the space who are unwilling to
>>> behave in a way that is respectful to the members and guests whose
>>> interests we share, and want to share.  That means that, despite our
>>> aversion to exclusion, we need to choose between excluding some or
>>> excluding others.
>>>
>>> For example, if we refuse abusive or disrespectful behavior and those
>>> who insist on it, we create an accessible space for people who avoid that
>>> behavior.  If we maintain an atmosphere of cooperation and care for each
>>> other and the hardware that is our space, we invite people from all
>>> backgrounds who seek to do the same things.  On the other hand, if we
>>> refuse this responsibility, we allow the tone to be set by those with the
>>> loudest voice, and the least to lose, and the quiet and self-respecting
>>> people will go elsewhere.
>>>
>>> I ask that we look to the future to envision the challenges we can
>>> expect as we continue to grow and do more awesome things, and think about
>>> what we hope to achieve.  That is why we need to protect ourselves, each
>>> other, and our hackerspace, from complacency and entropy as best we can.
>>>
>>> well, I feel that i have said more than enough about it for now, but if
>>> anyone has opinions on this i look forward to continuing the discussion.
>>>
>>> - -jake
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)
>>>
>>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNPBmAAoJEN7XJK**HgSSB182gP/00w2SXQSH1P+**6Ctp43OnSeo
>>> dHRneibcUo9QjXJeENONeLXtrB2B2q**EgJvb1ePDCFDT93Z/**Iw5Rtp83CZ8WYywxj
>>> zNx5cPVkfffac0hgBL79k9dYhuDYD8**1kqgOk4EHuow1E7ZiNmezqGhkYBuEt**m+YU
>>> +u4QZN0+**I9W7smjFLFr3XnQOz3x6IdjC4w2Nch**qVkXoGlKlwpsyLMykmFjI4SyaY
>>> QxZUJ+YzeBqhUMPGV9w2DY9C/**gL9LjvjLl33jO71xWrNb1ojRmAbFc7**UgEUHKces
>>> KwLgWRChp/g4h75Nge9uTkqs/**ETgtpDeYjbP8yrSp154wYJUpSPqidu**FKJCdpTCD
>>> au6Da2qP7Th/**uWSiGMBoEr7wOBGV13HOQUOF5mYb1n**W9zB+0EQMYzKk/T+cUcRQW
>>> y4l8H9j11Y0JXfPrbQm1YwRVLcHEyK**SHbV/crjXn+jY6YSePr49Mhcb+**hzLOz80E
>>> cg1/iHDk20SD7L/**7aNQONkO8LgtCIZO+pO6QT2v8OM3i/**6YKp2j5dC4yoRMysJRp
>>> TjkI6uW/**fi2NEz2ULQaif6zaJ9Ac47XoNzmYU6**a1/Jw+oiZ8lNjgQBD7s13epEHP
>>> /Df3SRZcRO8JVKoN/**c4yLyORlvVbn7FV++A87nsD4+**NeZjTx3OlFG+McXXo+4RKS
>>> 9CragepqbGfJyZ9GIRl7
>>> =tNc2
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.**org <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss>
>>>
>>
>>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNRImAAoJEN7XJK**HgSSB1VSwP/ic1a+t+**8VxkkG9Qo9Mv6Xt3
> 4E6gO9n7JzqjS19RjFLmWopTwj4YRq**jdz0rAVHcpTk5uahnTpppG8QABWxdE**L2fJ
> jYHxrQdf8q9axPWNW8ZAS1A+**QnLe2ok6xSZ9JyzqFIJ4UaKAvRA7g3**giDs7cMgzk
> lPJL/**6AJDKkuDSqFOOdeSlbfPo747GARopy**rNU+iUpKH8rQFTMVBVE6a01uPr+qQ
> otu1QsXgbwIUIisTDTUjSd7g+**ifC7mCYXDXorRrFEgOfdFyFGoycESU**jhPpVB9zo
> Z2HV35Ote/SnCEHML9dv09g5yoh/**xMUDJvvTznDXQIqdho5s0yeYO9ilcE**FUj/qD
> XsADbfrHHEYsBSST83t5ioWpPv5of9**5MUN2KmKzabTNKTwDS5cnCYKupR2zR**ZFHa
> AH5BX6y2maB9F8tRaAVlL4p/**AAq46Cz9SjN0SPvj8boy9zE+**GvWn0tQWfz9Yl7LZ
> JpeoeUt/gs+Ea3SZ+**1a6FpCK3AqFgo28ZjPfq6opb8oD7T9**6RGepjiJYGWprToyJ
> +AFg4GmDBSGKPr+**BYFVgeyZWZrm4pWY/**iWeBY11GHO588pQP86WKI54itYTd5/**22
> 1XAW13LNKlj22aw/**D690myzkqwhQ2RKhdjRW0SH4IJZBci**r1F+570em8YrXLtRAq
> eybTnT69HrwwK/Exn5Lg
> =sTD9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130914/db72da8d/attachment.html>