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

Jake jake at spaz.org
Sat Sep 14 19:21:29 PDT 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


sudo room is not a 501c3 non-profit organization.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:

> By the way, the California code for non-profit organizations with members has some very specific language
> that needs to be in the bylaws (or sent annually to all the members) on the procedure to be followed for
> expelling a member "in a fair and reasonable manner". One of the few cases where there is actually a
> legal requirement for how a nonprofit should run its business:
> 
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CORP/1/1/d2/2/3/4/s5341
> 
> The procedure is fairly involved and it can take weeks before someone you want out has been officially
> terminated. So you may want to make sure that you can also bar someone access to the space while their
> case is being reviewed.
> 
> Patrik
> 
> 
> 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)
>
>             iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNPBmAAoJEN7XJKHgSSB182gP/00w2SXQSH1P+6Ctp43OnSeo
>             dHRneibcUo9QjXJeENONeLXtrB2B2qEgJvb1ePDCFDT93Z/Iw5Rtp83CZ8WYywxj
>             zNx5cPVkfffac0hgBL79k9dYhuDYD81kqgOk4EHuow1E7ZiNmezqGhkYBuEtm+YU
>             +u4QZN0+I9W7smjFLFr3XnQOz3x6IdjC4w2NchqVkXoGlKlwpsyLMykmFjI4SyaY
>             QxZUJ+YzeBqhUMPGV9w2DY9C/gL9LjvjLl33jO71xWrNb1ojRmAbFc7UgEUHKces
>             KwLgWRChp/g4h75Nge9uTkqs/ETgtpDeYjbP8yrSp154wYJUpSPqiduFKJCdpTCD
>             au6Da2qP7Th/uWSiGMBoEr7wOBGV13HOQUOF5mYb1nW9zB+0EQMYzKk/T+cUcRQW
>             y4l8H9j11Y0JXfPrbQm1YwRVLcHEyKSHbV/crjXn+jY6YSePr49Mhcb+hzLOz80E
>             cg1/iHDk20SD7L/7aNQONkO8LgtCIZO+pO6QT2v8OM3i/6YKp2j5dC4yoRMysJRp
>             TjkI6uW/fi2NEz2ULQaif6zaJ9Ac47XoNzmYU6a1/Jw+oiZ8lNjgQBD7s13epEHP
>             /Df3SRZcRO8JVKoN/c4yLyORlvVbn7FV++A87nsD4+NeZjTx3OlFG+McXXo+4RKS
>             9CragepqbGfJyZ9GIRl7
>             =tNc2
>             -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>             _______________________________________________
>             sudo-discuss mailing list
>             sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>             http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNRImAAoJEN7XJKHgSSB1VSwP/ic1a+t+8VxkkG9Qo9Mv6Xt3
> 4E6gO9n7JzqjS19RjFLmWopTwj4YRqjdz0rAVHcpTk5uahnTpppG8QABWxdEL2fJ
> jYHxrQdf8q9axPWNW8ZAS1A+QnLe2ok6xSZ9JyzqFIJ4UaKAvRA7g3giDs7cMgzk
> lPJL/6AJDKkuDSqFOOdeSlbfPo747GARopyrNU+iUpKH8rQFTMVBVE6a01uPr+qQ
> otu1QsXgbwIUIisTDTUjSd7g+ifC7mCYXDXorRrFEgOfdFyFGoycESUjhPpVB9zo
> Z2HV35Ote/SnCEHML9dv09g5yoh/xMUDJvvTznDXQIqdho5s0yeYO9ilcEFUj/qD
> XsADbfrHHEYsBSST83t5ioWpPv5of95MUN2KmKzabTNKTwDS5cnCYKupR2zRZFHa
> AH5BX6y2maB9F8tRaAVlL4p/AAq46Cz9SjN0SPvj8boy9zE+GvWn0tQWfz9Yl7LZ
> JpeoeUt/gs+Ea3SZ+1a6FpCK3AqFgo28ZjPfq6opb8oD7T96RGepjiJYGWprToyJ
> +AFg4GmDBSGKPr+BYFVgeyZWZrm4pWY/iWeBY11GHO588pQP86WKI54itYTd5/22
> 1XAW13LNKlj22aw/D690myzkqwhQ2RKhdjRW0SH4IJZBcir1F+570em8YrXLtRAq
> eybTnT69HrwwK/Exn5Lg
> =sTD9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> 
> 
> 
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNRmpAAoJEN7XJKHgSSB1jHUP/izz19Jbbi62EIjMmCtGLTd3
I7JV4jofr4HovdyvDNXeJLtXBON7R0BjtZq6+jmm6ZZLb1so0JkN9cO6HIQ1aB62
+Gztjv9HV56eNZCF9lCwYDnQgKETntAbzAD245TtcCH5Faxz2JCfgoyNINKmlGJF
MIy0c98gkUVeg+uRBcD8Y0Q6BFIMs4RRTgVuP4Tj+PfSOOjonUCi21GxCKkOirwV
H25iFFqT5yVFKKWtANzW4ty32R3fSiDvrhy8FpwMVJuz+wXg7C77ktnYANTtq5Hn
dsLq2oU75jFfQtlPxQE/JfaP39vULLYvu7ZvAEQmvPPewKVAw6vzGlnMvJ1206Lz
TlZe78/7KIkrIJRCoo7dPw5m0rhe8O0p9uQ7bBOUmPylCvuSg1mO+t2VhWDro9Y0
2ct/ZGkX1yJYizPvVCjdPztAnGFsk+/4ATG3uEkIeZKM+LZNN/VfIVC+FaDVf38w
ds/xBN2rlWwh5feat1xsB7fQUoBZJJ6z0FCFoJdl7Di/xHyO53L++tkj40kk46ps
tZjGXnAOO5uh4W/98cYqEvuEWZfFgdQs4KUoaZ4vnLbBQ0wbjF0Zyk4w0LwzpNaB
FDeGO3+ym0XeODzqNBVfZ5Wn9pLcJ2OXtSjBKpvvPg/eThbFBY42eJSH/TUU1hNg
HkWLFY33hb9sJN1nA+nc
=1i7D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the sudo-discuss mailing list