[sudo-discuss] jake's idea for sudoroom membership structure
mark burdett
mfburdett at gmail.com
Sun Sep 15 07:03:21 PDT 2013
Hi, Jake's proposal for membership structure sounds really good to me so
far! I would agree with his observation that even consensus-minus-1 can be
problematic, so a modified consensus process is the way to go.
I think it would be a very good idea for sudo room to form a non-profit
public-benefit corporation (or 501(c)3 publicly-supported charitable
organization in federal tax code) for reasons of financial sustainability
and encouraging donations!
Two things to note: 1) California corporations code does not have really
detailed or onerous requirements for membership structure, aside from 15
day notice of termination of membership, which seems quite reasonable. 2)
State law allows a non-profit org to call things "members" which are not
legal "members" under the state corporations code. For example there would
be nothing wrong with sudoroom creating a "membership" in the hacker space
which is different from the "membership" described in its corporate bylaws.
See http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CORP/1/1/d2/2/3/3/s5332 Sudo room
should have a clearly-defined and agreed-upon membership structure, but we
should also be clear that corporate bylaws are not the only place to do
that :)
--mark B.
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> -----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<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)
>>
>> 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-----
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> 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)
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNRmpAAoJEN7XJK**HgSSB1jHUP/**izz19Jbbi62EIjMmCtGLTd3
> I7JV4jofr4HovdyvDNXeJLtXBON7R0**BjtZq6+**jmm6ZZLb1so0JkN9cO6HIQ1aB62
> +**Gztjv9HV56eNZCF9lCwYDnQgKETntA**bzAD245TtcCH5Faxz2JCfgoyNINKml**GJF
> MIy0c98gkUVeg+**uRBcD8Y0Q6BFIMs4RRTgVuP4Tj+**PfSOOjonUCi21GxCKkOirwV
> H25iFFqT5yVFKKWtANzW4ty32R3fSi**Dvrhy8FpwMVJuz+**wXg7C77ktnYANTtq5Hn
> dsLq2oU75jFfQtlPxQE/**JfaP39vULLYvu7ZvAEQmvPPewKVAw6**vzGlnMvJ1206Lz
> TlZe78/**7KIkrIJRCoo7dPw5m0rhe8O0p9uQ7b**BOUmPylCvuSg1mO+t2VhWDro9Y0
> 2ct/ZGkX1yJYizPvVCjdPztAnGFsk+**/4ATG3uEkIeZKM+LZNN/VfIVC+**FaDVf38w
> ds/**xBN2rlWwh5feat1xsB7fQUoBZJJ6z0**FCFoJdl7Di/xHyO53L++**tkj40kk46ps
> tZjGXnAOO5uh4W/**98cYqEvuEWZfFgdQs4KUoaZ4vnLbBQ**0wbjF0Zyk4w0LwzpNaB
> FDeGO3+**ym0XeODzqNBVfZ5Wn9pLcJ2OXtSjBK**pvvPg/eThbFBY42eJSH/TUU1hNg
> HkWLFY33hb9sJN1nA+nc
> =1i7D
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130915/6e294457/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list