[hackerspaces] Inter-Hackerspace Cooperation and Membership
Deech
formal occasions) we tossed around the ideal of reciprocal memberships
among Hackerspaces in the US (and Internationally, if it worked out
that way).
Basically, if you're a member in good standing at your local
Hackerspace, it'd be awesome if that gained you a membership in any
other Hackerspace you may be near, visiting or vacationing by.
This doesn't mean that everyone gains automatic full membership privs,
however your group may define them (for instance, our full members get
keys, which we probably wouldn't want to hand out to anyone who walked
off the street and said they were part of another space), but it seems
like it'd be a good community thing for the groups with spaces to
offer access for visiting hackers.
We tossed around what this would look like and had a few ideas, but
really, it's going to look like whatever we as a community decide it
looks like.
So, to kick it off, we, that is, Arch Reactor of St. Louis, are
willing to offer access and workshop/space usage to any other
Hackerspace member in good standing of any Hackerspace that's willing
to reciprocate the privilege to our members.
Our only caveat is that the reciprocating group must actually be
established, that is, actually have their own space to reciprocate
with. :) (in whatever state that space may be, we're not going to
exclude startups, as long as you have an actual location, we might
want to show up and help you get going!).
What does everyone else think?
-Deech
Director of Space, Time and Awesome
Arch Reactor St. Louis
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Dis...@lists.hackerspaces.org
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Sean Bonner
> but it seems
> like it'd be a good community thing for the groups with spaces to
> offer access for visiting hackers.
...
>
> What does everyone else think?
I'm curious, have you ever been denied access to a hackerspace? I ask
because in the 3 years or so that I've been visiting spaces all over
the world not only have I never been turned away but I've always been
welcomed with open arms. So I'm just wondering if there's a need for
this, or if it's already happening unofficially.
I know at Crash Space anyone from any other hackerspace is already
more than welcome to hang out here while they are in town..
-s
--
Sean Bonner
http://www.seanbonner.com - homebase
Unless agreed upon, assume everything in this e-mail might be blogged.
Sent from Los Angeles, CA, United States
Lokkju Brennr
stages - we still haven't even defined what a "member" is (though we
do have a location!). It's a great idea, though perhaps a bit
redundant since most hackerspaces are already happy to have out of
city/state/country visitors pop in.
Loki
PDX Hackerspace (AKA an as yet unnamed hackerspace in Portland, OR)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Deech <de...@ninjacow.net> wrote:
Deech
This isn't about really enabling access, I think that's sort of
already there. I think it's more about sort of "officially" saying,
"Hey! You're welcome here! We accept you as one of our own! Gooble
Gobble" secret handshakes all around and that sort of thing.
There's a lot of unspoken friendly, and that's great. I just wanted to
bring it out in the open and make it spoken friendly.
Know what I mean? :)
I think there's a certain type of people in the community
that grok the openness of it. OTOH, I think there are a certain type
of people that need a written invitation to understand they are
welcome.
That's why I started this conversation.
Also, it'd be cool to put a list on the website and say something to
the effect of "These are our family! Membership here gains you
membership there." But I wouldn't want to presume to say that unless
that group has specifically agreed to that.
-Deech
Paul Bohm
and around these spaces.
for a while i was in the "let's create a formal hs.org organization
and do stuff, we could achieve so much more" camp, but talking to ppl
i realized that the [imho] coolest hackerspaces have the least rules
and formal structures, and are guided mostly by the values encoded
within their group/community and social feedback.
i now think the same is true of hackerspaces.org and
inter-hackerspaces relations: as little structure as possible, and
mostly just shared values, feedback and respect and friendship earned
through action.
so in summary, i think formalizing this would fall under the
don't-fix-what-ain't-broken rule, but don't let that discourage you
from giving it a try!
enki
john arclight
Arclight
Yves Quemener
> No, I don't think anyone has ever been denied access.
>
> This isn't about really enabling access, I think that's sort of
> already there. I think it's more about sort of "officially" saying,
> "Hey! You're welcome here! We accept you as one of our own! Gooble
> Gobble" secret handshakes all around and that sort of thing.
On one hand, as other people pointed out, I don't think it is necessary,
but on the other hand, as someone who has always been intrigued by
reputation economy, I would be curious to see how such a system comes out.
I say, let's try to go with it as a toy system. A trust system would be
interesting to test in the hacker's community.
Yves
Koen Martens
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Deech <de...@ninjacow.net> wrote:
>
> > but it seems
> > like it'd be a good community thing for the groups with spaces to
> > offer access for visiting hackers.
>
> ...
>
>
> >
> > What does everyone else think?
>
>
>
> I'm curious, have you ever been denied access to a hackerspace? I ask
> because in the 3 years or so that I've been visiting spaces all over
> the world not only have I never been turned away but I've always been
> welcomed with open arms. So I'm just wondering if there's a need for
> this, or if it's already happening unofficially.
Well, there's c-base, where basically if you're not a member you do not
get access to the members-only area (unless escorted, and really, in
off-times it isn't so strict).
Anyway, the whole idea has been tossed around Dutch hackerspaces for a
while now, although we still are not sure about the details. We came up
with a slightly larger membership fee. The additional fee would go into
some national hackerspace fund somehow, and participating hackerspaces
would then accept these 'members+' to their facilities and use their
equipment.
One area where this might be a difference: at revspace we plan to ask a
small fee for workshop participation from non-members. Members of other
hackerspaces could then be exempt from this fee.
Anyway, we are still mulling over the details, because we have another
category as well: people that want to support hackerspaces by becoming a
member but not one specific hackerspace. For example because they do not
live near one of the hackerspaces, but do travel the country a lot and
thus might want to visit any of the spaces from time to time. We're
working out some kind of 'roaming' membership, but again, details are
stil vague.
> I know at Crash Space anyone from any other hackerspace is already
> more than welcome to hang out here while they are in town..
Actually, it is the same with revspace, although we expect one to be in
the company of an established member. Just to be on the safe side
(anyone can come along and claim he is with hackerspace such and such
you know).
Gr,
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
Ron Bean
>Anyway, we are still mulling over the details, because we have another
>category as well: people that want to support hackerspaces by becoming a
>member but not one specific hackerspace. For example because they do not
>live near one of the hackerspaces, but do travel the country a lot and
>thus might want to visit any of the spaces from time to time. We're
>working out some kind of 'roaming' membership, but again, details are
>stil vague.
Another situation is where you have more than one hackerspace in the
same area. Right now I'm a member of two groups (only one of which has a
space right now). It's expensive to pay dues to both, but right now both
groups need the money, so I'd hesitate to ask for a discount (that might
change in the future, when both groups are more established). When they
both have actual spaces, they'll have different capabilities.
Koen Martens
> Anyway, the whole idea has been tossed around Dutch hackerspaces for a
> while now, although we still are not sure about the details. We came up
> with a slightly larger membership fee. The additional fee would go into
> some national hackerspace fund somehow, and participating hackerspaces
> would then accept these 'members+' to their facilities and use their
> equipment.
I've been putting some of the thoughts, comments and ideas in a document
for discussion by the community, thought i'd share it here as well!
Gr,
Koen (gmc)
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
====================
Author: Koen Martens (gmc) <g...@revspace.nl>
Version: 0.1
Status: proposal
This document proposes a form of special membership of the
Dutch hackerspaces. Please join the discussion at the
hackerspaces.nl discussion list:
https://lists.hackerspaces.nl/wws/info/discussion
The goal is not to set rules, but merely to provide a
framework to accommodate the desires felt within the
community. This document should be read as such.
1. Roaming membership
---------------------
Several people have expressed a wish to support hackerspaces
and become member, but not of a specific hackerspace. An
example is the case where the prospective member is not
living close to any of the existing hackerspaces. In this
case none of the hackerspaces can effectively be this
members' '3rd room'.
With a roaming membership, this person can visit any
participating hackerspace, and enjoy certain benefits set
out by each of the participating hackerspaces.
1.1. Roaming benefits
For example, at Revelation Space, non-members pay a small
fee for participation in certain workshops. For roaming
members, this fee might be waived (as it is for actual
members of the space).
Roaming members typically do not get a key to any of the
spaces, although this is up for decision by each of the
individual spaces.
Each hackerspace decides on the specific benefits roaming
members get at their space.
1.2. Roaming fee collection
Roaming members pay their dues to the Hxx foundation, who
collects the money and puts it in a special fund. The fund
will be spend at the discretion of the participating
hackerspaces.
To keep things simple, the money from the fund may be spend
only if all of the hackerspaces (by way of their governing
body) agree to the expenditure.
2. Membership plus
------------------
Another kind of global membership pertains to those members
of hackerspaces that do get around and might want to visit
other hackerspaces from time to time.
The basic premis is that the member pays a slightly higher
fee at their hackerspace, to get additional benefits at the
participating hackerspaces.
2.1. Membership plus benefits
The same applies as stated under 1.1. The benefits for
membership plus might be different from the benefits of a
roaming membership.
2.2. Membership plus fee collection
The additional fee (which will be set to the same amount
across all spaces to keep things fair) will be collected by
the individual hackerspaces. Members of space X will pay the
extra fee to space X.
The extra fee will not be put into a central collection
agency, but remain in the funds of the individual
hackerspace. The rationale is to keep things simple.
Spending of the extra funds is entirely at the discretion of
the collecting hackerspace.
3. Identification
-----------------
When a roaming member or member+ first visits one of the
hackerspaces there might be a problem of identification. "Is
this person really a roaming hackerspaces member?". It is up
to each of the hackerspaces to find a way to deal with this.
As a common guideline, in case of membership plus, the
hackerspace could contact representatives of the space the
member claims to be with. Ties between hackerspaces are
considered to be close enough to make this kind of
verification possible.
As for the roaming members, some sort of token may be
issued. This provides a weak protection against fraud of
course. The form and properties of such a card should be
decided by the participating hackerspaces. People in
possesion of such a card may call themselves 'card carrying
hackers'.
Another form of validation that could be applied is to just
take the persons claim at face value. This provides the
weakest form of validation.
4. Enrollment
-------------
Hackerspaces can enroll in this program by stating their
intention to participate, and compliance to the conditions
outlined below.
4.1. Conditions for enrollment
The conditions are:
a.) the hackerspace does have an actual physical space that
is understood by common sense to be a hackerspace;
b.) membership of the hackerspace is, in principle, open to
any natural person that expresses the wish to become a
member.
4.2. Status of agreement
The whole deal is understood to be on the basis of an
understanding between the participating hackerspaces, and
has no legal basis or otherwise binding contractual form. At
any time could a hackerspace retract from the understanding.
There are no obligations to participate.
4.3. Miminal reciprocity
It might be felt that a given hackerspaces does not provide
enough reciprocity in the sense of paragraphs 1.1 and 2.1.
of this document, while still making a claim to the funds.
In this case, the hackerspace might be unanimously excluded
from this program by the remaining hackerspaces.
EOF
quemen...@free.fr
----- "Koen Martens" <g...@har2009.org> a écrit :
> 1.2. Roaming fee collection
>
> Roaming members pay their dues to the Hxx foundation, who
> collects the money and puts it in a special fund. The fund
> will be spend at the discretion of the participating
> hackerspaces.
>
> To keep things simple, the money from the fund may be spend
> only if all of the hackerspaces (by way of their governing
> body) agree to the expenditure.
So one blocking person may be enough to block a situation where some money is involved ? Expect drama.
> 4.3. Miminal reciprocity
>
> It might be felt that a given hackerspaces does not provide
> enough reciprocity in the sense of paragraphs 1.1 and 2.1.
> of this document, while still making a claim to the funds.
> In this case, the hackerspace might be unanimously excluded
> from this program by the remaining hackerspaces.
So what prevents the same nasty guy to pretend he represents two hackerspaces ? Or to come with one of his friends ?
Koen Martens
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 03:44:47PM +0100, quemen...@free.fr wrote:
> As an outside armchair observer, I would just like to point out something that I anticipate to cause some problems :
>
> ----- "Koen Martens" <g...@har2009.org> a écrit :
>
> > 1.2. Roaming fee collection
> >
> > Roaming members pay their dues to the Hxx foundation, who
> > collects the money and puts it in a special fund. The fund
> > will be spend at the discretion of the participating
> > hackerspaces.
> >
> > To keep things simple, the money from the fund may be spend
> > only if all of the hackerspaces (by way of their governing
> > body) agree to the expenditure.
>
> So one blocking person may be enough to block a situation where some money is involved ? Expect drama.
Indeed.. The potential for drama is limited by the fact that this is
largely a social thing.. An understanding between hackerspaces. .nl is
small enough that we all have close ties with one-another. And in the
end, the proposal only is that: an understanding between hackerspaces.
Anyway, i'm curious as to how to rework that part so as to avoid drama,
without instating complicated schemes and conditions and all (ie.
over-formalizing). One option would be to put the spending at the
discretion of the Hxx foundation itself for example.. Nice and simple.
> > 4.3. Miminal reciprocity
> >
> > It might be felt that a given hackerspaces does not provide
> > enough reciprocity in the sense of paragraphs 1.1 and 2.1.
> > of this document, while still making a claim to the funds.
> > In this case, the hackerspace might be unanimously excluded
> > from this program by the remaining hackerspaces.
>
> So what prevents the same nasty guy to pretend he represents two hackerspaces ? Or to come with one of his friends ?
Social control. Plus, you actually have to be a hackerspace. A single
guy/girl doesn't have a say, only a hackerspace (by way of its governing
body, whatever that may be). But indeed, there is nothing formal in
there that prevents someone from setting up two hackerspaces. Although I
suspect that would be a lot of work (remember, it has to be a convincing
enough job so that everyone else in the world really sees it as a
hackerspace) for a limited pay-off..
Gr,
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
quemen...@free.fr
----- "Koen Martens" <g...@sonologic.nl> a écrit :
> Indeed.. The potential for drama is limited by the fact that this is
> largely a social thing.. An understanding between hackerspaces. .nl
> is small enough that we all have close ties with one-another. And in the
> end, the proposal only is that: an understanding between
> hackerspaces.
I understand that and it will probably work at the beginning but it would work about the same without this structure existing, as as you tell these hackerspaces more or less know each others.
But fast-forward in 5 years. Some guy at hackerspace A decided that real life was getting in the way so he gave the reign to another guy, another hackerspace slowly changed to focus primarily on political activism and keeps bugging others to join a militant movement of some sort and another hackerspace appeared that embarrass a lot of people because they surely have enthusiasm, a place and are very nice, but they aren't doing anything at all. The interest of making a structure that could last in the long term is to make one that could resist such conditions (which I exaggerate but not beyond plausibility)
> Anyway, i'm curious as to how to rework that part so as to avoid
> drama,
> without instating complicated schemes and conditions and all (ie.
> over-formalizing). One option would be to put the spending at the
> discretion of the Hxx foundation itself for example.. Nice and
> simple.
I think that a sort of federation that manages money is doomed into attracting people with a taste for politics. I think that a way in which the Hxx foundation would not be managing anything else than information and trust networks has far more chances of staying out of dissensions. Couldn't there be some sort of exchange program that tracks how much visitors have been greeted, or a sort of recommendation/reputation system where one person could say "this is a valuable member of our lab" ?
Of course, anonymousness can be a concern with this system... Anyway, as long as it is not a rule...
> > So what prevents the same nasty guy to pretend he represents two
> hackerspaces ? Or to come with one of his friends ?
>
> Social control. Plus, you actually have to be a hackerspace. A single
> guy/girl doesn't have a say, only a hackerspace (by way of its
> governing body, whatever that may be). But indeed, there is nothing formal in
> there that prevents someone from setting up two hackerspaces. Although
> I
> suspect that would be a lot of work (remember, it has to be a
> convincing
> enough job so that everyone else in the world really sees it as a
> hackerspace) for a limited pay-off..
Agreed, enough precautions could be taken to prevent a random guy being the head of a self-proclaimed hackerspace.
Koen Martens
>
> ----- "Koen Martens" <g...@sonologic.nl> a écrit :
>
> > Indeed.. The potential for drama is limited by the fact that this is
> > largely a social thing.. An understanding between hackerspaces. .nl
> > is small enough that we all have close ties with one-another. And in the
> > end, the proposal only is that: an understanding between
> > hackerspaces.
>
> I understand that and it will probably work at the beginning but it would work about the same without this structure existing, as as you tell these hackerspaces more or less know each others.
> But fast-forward in 5 years. Some guy at hackerspace A decided that real life was getting in the way so he gave the reign to another guy, another hackerspace slowly changed to focus primarily on political activism and keeps bugging others to join a militant movement of some sort and another hackerspace appeared that embarrass a lot of people because they surely have enthusiasm, a place and are very nice, but they aren't doing anything at all. The interest of making a structure that could last in the long term is to make one that could resist such conditions (which I exaggerate but not beyond plausibility)
A valid observation, and I see i haven't been careful enough in wording
that paragraph. The idea was that the _participating_ hackerspaces would
need to agree, not just _any_ hackerspace. That would perhaps address
your concern, at least partly. In addition, perhaps participation should
be up for scrutiny whenever there is a change in the governing body.
This would work with spaces that have a board, but not with purely
membership governed spaces where basically each new or leaving member
constitutes a change in the governing body....
> > Anyway, i'm curious as to how to rework that part so as to avoid
> > drama,
> > without instating complicated schemes and conditions and all (ie.
> > over-formalizing). One option would be to put the spending at the
> > discretion of the Hxx foundation itself for example.. Nice and
> > simple.
>
> I think that a sort of federation that manages money is doomed into attracting people with a taste for politics. I think that a way in which the Hxx foundation would not be managing anything else than information and trust networks has far more chances of staying out of dissensions. Couldn't there be some sort of exchange program that tracks how much visitors have been greeted, or a sort of recommendation/reputation system where one person could say "this is a valuable member of our lab" ?
I'm a bit hesistant with basing spending of the money on number of
visitors/members or stuff like that (which I think you are proposing
here). Simply because for eg a space with a lot of members already has
significant financial income.
I also don't think the money will be just given away to the
participating hackerspaces (although in the proposal, if all
hackerspaces decide to do this, that's ok). I think of it more as a fund
for common resources. Maybe collective insurance for example, or bulk
buying of components or tools to get discounts.
Gr,
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
quemen...@free.fr
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:32:10PM +0100, quemen...@free.fr
> wrote:
>> I understand that and it will probably work at the beginning but it
>> would work about the same without this structure existing, as as you
>> tell these hackerspaces more or less know each others.
>> But fast-forward in 5 years. Some guy at hackerspace A decided that
>> real life was getting in the way so he gave the reign to another guy,
>> another hackerspace slowly changed to focus primarily on political
>> activism and keeps bugging others to join a militant movement of some
>> sort and another hackerspace appeared that embarrass a lot of people
>> because they surely have enthusiasm, a place and are very nice, but
>> they aren't doing anything at all. The interest of making a structure
>> that could last in the long term is to make one that could resist such
>> conditions (which I exaggerate but not beyond plausibility)
>
> A valid observation, and I see i haven't been careful enough in
> wording
> that paragraph. The idea was that the _participating_ hackerspaces
> would
> need to agree, not just _any_ hackerspace. That would perhaps address
> your concern, at least partly.
Hmmm, no, I am proposing that if you accept an hackerspace for participation at a date t, it may have changed a lot at t+5 years to the point where you would not have accepted it if it were applying at t+5 years. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some sort of higher level structure emerge and think it is possible but that it requires a bit paranoïa for getting right.
> In addition, perhaps participation should
> be up for scrutiny whenever there is a change in the governing body.
That would be a safeguard, indeed.
> This would work with spaces that have a board, but not with purely
> membership governed spaces where basically each new or leaving member
> constitutes a change in the governing body....
For these, maybe a yearly re-examination of the participation ?
> > I think that a sort of federation that manages money is doomed into
> > attracting people with a taste for politics. I think that a way in
> > which the Hxx foundation would not be managing anything else than
> > information and trust networks has far more chances of staying out of
> > dissensions. Couldn't there be some sort of exchange program that
> > tracks how much visitors have been greeted, or a sort of
> > recommendation/reputation system where one person could say "this is a
> > valuable member of our lab" ?
>
> I'm a bit hesistant with basing spending of the money on number of
> visitors/members or stuff like that (which I think you are proposing
> here).
Hmmm, I really have to be careful about how I phrase things I think. No, what I am suggesting is that this Hxx foundation doesn't manage any money : it receives none, it distributes none. It just maintains a (maybe non-public) list of official members of various hackerspaces and whether or not they paid their contribution this year. This allows all participating hackerspaces to check whether a visitor is only a guest or if he has the attributes of a member (I don't know a lot of hackerspaces that make the difference but this is a theoretical discussion). To become a member, one just pays what it takes to be a member of the one he goes more often to.
> I also don't think the money will be just given away to the
> participating hackerspaces (although in the proposal, if all
> hackerspaces decide to do this, that's ok). I think of it more as a
> fund for common resources. Maybe collective insurance for example, or bulk
> buying of components or tools to get discounts.
Why not having a per-project approach ? I mean some projects interest some hackerspaces more than others. The more security-inclined hackerspace will see less interest in sharing the cost of a milling machine in a fab lab than sharing costs to have a group discount to a security conference (that mechanical fab geeks will be less interested in). Why risk having endless debates about the utility of a project that interest only half of the members when one could have a more flexible approach ?
Bryan Bishop
> ----- "Koen Martens" <g...@sonologic.nl> a écrit :
>> participating hackerspaces (although in the proposal, if all
>> hackerspaces decide to do this, that's ok). I think of it more as a
>> fund for common resources. Maybe collective insurance for example, or bulk
>> buying of components or tools to get discounts.
>
> Why not having a per-project approach ? I mean some projects interest some hackerspaces more than others. The more security-inclined hackerspace will see less interest in sharing the cost of a milling machine in a fab lab than sharing costs to have a group discount to a security conference (that mechanical fab geeks will be less interested in). Why risk having endless debates about the utility of a project that interest only half of the members when one could have a more flexible approach ?
Hi all. I'm new around these parts and would like to see what others
think about per-project organization across hackerspaces. I'm not
saying I'm for it or against it, but just that I'd like to see some
more discussion on that idea, rather than cross-membership policies.
:-) Ready, set..
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Paul Bohm
of a potential future with complicated rules and inter-hackerspace
contracts?
i'm still on the don't try to fix problems that don't exist page!
if you're about to travel, having your friends introduce you to their
friends in other cities and countries is the way to go.
no one's gonna be friendly to you because of some international
bilateral contract, no matter how many pages long, but because you're
cool, and your friends have introduced you to us as being cool.
Nick Farr (hackerspaces.org)
However, more data is necessary.
I consider myself fortunate that I've been welcomed by every
hackerspace I've visited. In cases where I didn't have a direct
friendship with another hackerspace, I was introduced by a friend
before my visit and have always been received very warmly.
I know many others have had similar experiences, but this may not be
universal. So I ask:
1) Has anyone here been refused access or admission to another hackerspace?
2) Has anyone here been unable to reach a friend or contact at another
hackerspace they've wanted to visit?
3) Has anyone visited a fellow hackerspace and been refused privileges
normally available to members?
Perhaps understanding the limitations of the current system (i.e.
informal introductions) would help shape a more effective proposal
for...dare I say it, Hackerspaces 2.0?
Nick Farr / http://nickfarr.org / 8B13F204
Washington, DC, 20013-1208
P: +1 (707) 676-FARR
F: +1 (866) 536-2616
Sent from Washington, District of Columbia, United States
Sean Bonner
early on in this discussion, as well as in the other discussion about
cross space memberships and at least among the people polled no one
had ever been turned away or denied.
Because of this I think that a lot of this discussion is trying to fix
a problem which might potentially exist in the future but doesn't
right now, which I don't think is really needed.
That said, hackerspaces working together is something I'm *very*
interested in, which is why I'm actually a registered member of
several spaces in addition to Crash Space in LA which I helped create.
Not that I couldn't get the same results by just stopping in but
because I wanted to be actively involved in, and contributing to the
growth of, several spaces in hopes of really interesting things coming
from spaces working together. But I don't see the need for a formal
structure to do that.
I think the organic, chaotic, things just working out, nature of
hackerspaces is part of what makes them so great and that can be
legislated out of existence which I'd hate to see happen.
-s
--
Sean Bonner
http://www.seanbonner.com - homebase
http://www.metblogs.com - get local
Unless agreed upon, assume everything in this e-mail might be blogged.
Sent from Culver City, CA, United States
Far McKon
> I think the organic, chaotic, things just working out, nature of
> hackerspaces is part of what makes them so great and that can be
> legislated out of existence which I'd hate to see happen.
I completely agree with the new turn in the conversation, and also
mentioned it earlier in the thread. Spaces should be allowed to work
out their own system, and we should be encouraged to try some
different stuff, and see how it goes, and share with other spaces how
we work. Over time, some best practices will become obvious.
I would like to get this info on the wiki, in a clear way, so it's
available and easy to find.
1) Hackerspces generally welcome people. (See the section Visitors)
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Roaming_Membership_(USA)#Visitors
2) Some Hackerspaces *already have* special membership agreements between.
At a minimum PSOne and CCCKC have special membership. I don't know
the details of it, but can someone from one of the spaces add their
info to the page. Either under the appropriate section, or under a new
section describing the collaboration
3) Some hackerspaces automaticlly claim everyone as a member
At least 3 spaces automatically give all other hackers are full member rights
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Roaming_Membership_(USA)#Automatic_Basic_Membership
4) If you (or hackerspace you know) had a special membership
cross-agreement, can you please add it?
I'd like to have the info there so we can see how collaboration is
going, see what works and what doesn't, and let people try to copy
existing working models of cross-membership.
Good information is the basis for good decision making, so hop on that
wiki and add your space (if you have cross-membership).
hack on,
- Far
Steve Clement
Hash: SHA1
Nick Farr (hackerspaces.org) wrote:
> For the *moment*, I'm going to have to side with Enki on this one.
> However, more data is necessary.
True indeed, but never forget, one family one dream...
> I consider myself fortunate that I've been welcomed by every
> hackerspace I've visited. In cases where I didn't have a direct
> friendship with another hackerspace, I was introduced by a friend
> before my visit and have always been received very warmly.
>
> I know many others have had similar experiences, but this may not be
> universal. So I ask:
>
> 1) Has anyone here been refused access or admission to another hackerspace?
Not refused as such, but an awkward look was given to us (4 Luxembourg
Hackers) when we Rocked into C-Base to "check out" their space.
We kindly introduced ourselves as fellow Hackers and that we didn't want
to bother anyone and just wanted inspiration for our space.
The response was pretty cold hearted:
"Well, we are not a Zoo and do not peak around the corner, that's Private"
We honestly didn't fancy to insist and did understand too that it was
Congress time (yep this was during 26C3)
So I guess there is a time and place for everything and we just had a
bad timing and maybe (especially if you have a lot of members) the
unfortunate chance to meet a "grumpy" member.
> 2) Has anyone here been unable to reach a friend or contact at another
> hackerspace they've wanted to visit?
Well, funny you ask :) I was in Budapest last week and the main barrier
was the Language :) my Hungarian sucks BUT as there a 2 listed spaces, I
had made contact to the second space and they helped me find the first :)
I was warmly welcomed by H.A.C.K in Budapest and the first person to use
their NEWLY installed doorbell!
All other spaces 'I visited was a very similar scenario, in Noisebridge
I even helped myself to browse their Library and obviously that was fine
(excellence does go a far way)
> Perhaps understanding the limitations of the current system (i.e.
> informal introductions) would help shape a more effective proposal
> for...dare I say it, Hackerspaces 2.0?
Limitations? The only limitations are the ones you are setting
yourselves I guess.
We at syn2cat have welcomed the fine folks from HackerSpace Brussels
(obviously they could sleep in our space)
LeKernel (/tmp/lab) crashed on my couch for a few days.
Neither of which we/I never met in my life. But the way they approached
us/me was proof enough that you can trust them and why not grant them
access to make their stay more pleasant? (And I read their posts etc, so
they were not really strangers, and worst case you can do a research on
the web about that person, but that is one paranoid vortex I don't want
to get sucked in to)
After all they are not going to move in, just stay a week or maybe even
two, so let's hack together have some fun and we'll see each other in
their space.
But I have to be honest, in being open in that kind of way I do somehow
expect the same behaviour from my peer-movements. But will be
understanding if reason asks for it.
As I offered this to our Hungarian friends and others, let's make it
more "official":
If you happen to pass through Luxembourg (Europe) to get some
cigarettes, gas or try to evade Taxes, stop by at our Hackerspace!
cheers,
Steve
- --
The Hackerspace in Luxembourg!
syn2cat Hackerspace.lu A.S.B.L.
11, am Hueflach | L-8018 Strassen
http://www.hackerspace.lu
xmpp:SteveC...@jabber.hackerspaces.org
mailto:st...@hackerspace.lu
.lu: +352 20 333 55 65
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAktM6oYACgkQPSE8bmHRmNXsFQCePK7XBVwmTmO6/IHnLIzj5ngm
AaYAoIpaMFDpHMVATtFUm5JEmN0Q1pjY
=3swQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Olle Jonsson
> "Well, we are not a Zoo and do not peak around the corner, that's Private"
+1 with precisely that experience. I thought that door might lead to a
lavatory, but was promptly guided out. "Members only."
Openness is quite difficult. Here is a little reflection on that:
Tonight, we had a super-success with people just pouring in, like a
quiet rock concert, to see a RepRap in action. Standing room only. A
short talk was done (over when I arrived).
Most of the people left after the demo was concluded. I didn't get to
shake many new hands, we didn't really create a "social space" where
people should do something (say, introduce themselves, and tell the
world a new idea, or write their email address down on a list, or
donate in a box). There is a lesson in there, to be learned, I guess.
To the new people, none of us regulars were approachable, we didn't
look any different from the rest of the visitors. No badges, no
special hats.
-O
Sean Bonner
--
Sean Bonner
http://www.seanbonner.com - homebase
http://www.metblogs.com - get local
Unless agreed upon, assume everything in this e-mail might be blogged.
Sent from Los Angeles, CA, United States
Paul Bohm
have that members/non-members separation in a 8000 sq feet location.
most of the space is available to the public, but they have good
reasons to keep their backstage closed especially during a congress.
the only way you can get past that is by getting to know members, or
by getting someone they know well enough to introduce you, and then
have them give you a tour.
i understand that it's annoying, but there's no shortcut to this. they
wouldn't be able to let you backstage even with a piece of paper in
hand.
paul
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Olle Jonsson <olle.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
Koen Martens
> guys, why is it suddenly a good idea to solve the potential problems
> of a potential future with complicated rules and inter-hackerspace
> contracts?
>
> i'm still on the don't try to fix problems that don't exist page!
>
> if you're about to travel, having your friends introduce you to their
> friends in other cities and countries is the way to go.
>
> no one's gonna be friendly to you because of some international
> bilateral contract, no matter how many pages long, but because you're
> cool, and your friends have introduced you to us as being cool.
Hum, i'm trying to solve an existing problem actually. I'm not suggesting international
bilateral contracts, just writing down some thoughts that I have discussed with several
people. And the scope is really limited to Dutch hackerspaces, which is nice and easy
to oversee (.nl is a really small country and basically everyone in the community knows
everyone else).
The existing problem is that there are more than a handful of people who want to support
the local hackerspaces movement, which is currently upcoming in our small country, but
don't want to commit to one specific hackerspace.
Instead of letting that pool of support go to a waste because it is not accommodated,
i want to create conditions for that potential support to convert into real support.
Best,
Koen
Paul Bohm
that sounds great - it seems like you're solving a real problem in
.nl, and i think that might make a lot of sense there, especially if
people from these hackerspaces already know each other well or some
people travel a lot between the spaces. i wasn't trying to discourage
you from finding a good solution for these people that want to support
and be a part of multiple hackerspaces in your area at all. what
you're talking about sounds like a pragmatic solution, and i commend
you for that.
however regarding the larger discussion that spawned this thread, i
believe that agreements like this only work if they're making a
structure that is in essence (in this case through strong social ties
and physical proximity) already there, explicit. people at
hackerspaces generally are already very welcoming, and i don't think a
structured program that vastly exceeds existing social boundaries
could improve this. you can't decree that strangers will be friends -
all you can do is introduce friends to each other and hope they'll
become friends in turn.
enki
quemen...@free.fr
----- "Paul Bohm" <pa...@boehm.org> a écrit :
> hey koen,
>
> that sounds great - it seems like you're solving a real problem in
> .nl, and i think that might make a lot of sense there, especially if
> people from these hackerspaces already know each other well or some
> people travel a lot between the spaces. i wasn't trying to discourage
> you from finding a good solution for these people that want to
> support
> and be a part of multiple hackerspaces in your area at all. what
> you're talking about sounds like a pragmatic solution, and i commend
> you for that.
>
> however regarding the larger discussion that spawned this thread, i
> believe that agreements like this only work if they're making a
> structure that is in essence (in this case through strong social ties
> and physical proximity) already there, explicit. people at
> hackerspaces generally are already very welcoming, and i don't think
> a structured program that vastly exceeds existing social boundaries
> could improve this. you can't decree that strangers will be friends -
> all you can do is introduce friends to each other and hope they'll
> become friends in turn.
I think that this works well when the number of visitors is lower than the number of members. In a situation like the aforementioned C-base during a Chaos Congress, having more visitors than members can cause problem and require a policy of some kind. I think the current discussion is useful if we want to avoid the "members only" policy from becoming more and more common.
I agree that it should work by making social ties explicit. What is asked for is maybe nothing more than a hacker's social network or a profile a la Couch Surfing : they solve quite gracefully a problem that is close to this one : "I'm ready to give people a place to crash as long as I at least know someone who says he/she is not a psychopath"
Koen Martens
> I think that this works well when the number of visitors is lower than the number of members. In a situation like the aforementioned C-base during a Chaos Congress, having more visitors than members can cause problem and require a policy of some kind. I think the current discussion is useful if we want to avoid the "members only" policy from becoming more and more common.
FWIW, although i might not have been happy with it at the time, i totally understand the policy at c-base at the time of big parties. You simply don't want all those intoxicated party-people in your members area, messing around with projects and equipment when they're not in their most clear and careful state. Apart from the fact that they might break stuff, that might actually turn out to be dangerous.
And in my experience, when the place is not crowded things are not as strict and you can get a tour or sit and hang out if you know someone there (getting to know people is easy these days :).
Gr,
Koen
Sean Bonner
http://blog.seanbonner.com/2010/01/13/hackerspaces-and-thriving-on-chaos/
-s
--
Sean Bonner
http://www.seanbonner.com - homebase
http://www.metblogs.com - get local
Unless agreed upon, assume everything in this e-mail might be blogged.
Yves Quemener
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, quemen...@free.fr wrote:
>> I think that this works well when the number of visitors is lower than the number of members. In a situation like the aforementioned C-base during a Chaos Congress, having more visitors than members can cause problem and require a policy of some kind. I think the current discussion is useful if we want to avoid the "members only" policy from becoming more and more common.
>
> FWIW, although i might not have been happy with it at the time, i totally understand the policy at c-base at the time of big parties. You simply don't want all those intoxicated party-people in your members area, messing around with projects and equipment when they're not in their most clear and careful state. Apart from the fact that they might break stuff, that might actually turn out to be dangerous.
>
> And in my experience, when the place is not crowded things are not as strict and you can get a tour or sit and hang out if you know someone there (getting to know people is easy these days :).
Well, right now hackers usually feel that they are not enough and welcome
any curious person but imagine that the next hollywood movie is a "hackers
are cool and have super powers" movie. You'll quickly get surrounded by a
crowd of incompetent self-proclaimed hackers and sorting between reputed
people and complete tourists can be hard. It would be nice to have a kind
of social network in place to know who is who. Maybe a layer on top of a
FOAF ? But I know that social networks are frown upon by many...
Paul Bohm
problems that don't exist yet", was the most important lesson we ever
learned. i believe strongly enough in that lesson that i think there's
a general pattern there.
whenever we thought there was an exception to that rule, some possible
future problem we'd need to take care of right now with process and
regulation, we were wrong. it's important to see that any rules or
process you add have cost too, and erring on the side of too much is
very costly, because every bit of flexibility you remove will make
your place lose its dynamicism.
i can give endless examples of stupid things we thought we'd have to
do because of futures we predicted (e.g. there was very strong
sentiment to but up bars in front of the windows, because someone
might break in, and that's just one tiny example) - basically
metalab's first year of existence for me was nothing but a constant
fight between ppl wanting to create rules, and ppl preventing them
from doing so. i'm really happy to say that i think for the most part
we managed to prevent people from enacting rules for non-existing
problems, but it really was a full-time struggle (austrians love
rules!).
after all this, and seeing how many non-existing problems we didn't
solve and how well it turned out, i believe even more now that humans
are incapable of predicting the future, and that in hackerspaces
there's almost no potential future problems that should be solved
right now. you not only have insufficient information about the
future, but you're also depriving the group of a learning process.
some pain is good, because it helps the group experiment with
solutions, rally behind an effort, and then when the pain goes away
everyone has learned something, and the solution is hopefully accepted
by everyone.
enki
Far McKon
I think part of the confusion is over what 'membership' is. When I
talk 'or write' about 'membership' I'm taking about things like
getting keys to a space, voting on proposals, borrowing equipment,
getting 'member' cost on parts/classes. Getting root access to servers
run by the space, getting into 'member only' areas, etc. I'm not sure
if that is what other people mean by 'membership', but I'm not just
talking about using the Guff (general stuff) at a space when I visit.
I think everyone is in violent agreement on how to treat visitors.
But where and when can (for example) can HacDC vote on a proposal at
Hive76? Or what does it take for me to get keys to Alpha One Labs and
NYCResistor, so I can let myself in anytime? Is there an GPG style
trust network I can call on to get root on a server running an awesome
project in Seattle somehow?
And I don't think a single person on this list *ever* (just scowered
the back log) said this should be centrally controlled or managed, so
I think everyone saying 'this should be distributed' (me included)
are in violent agreement. Can we mark that line of discussion as
'agreed on' and drop it?
Thoughts? Feedback?
hack on, and hoping for feedback,
- Far McKon
Yves Quemener
Far McKon wrote:
> And I don't think a single person on this list *ever* (just scowered
> the back log) said this should be centrally controlled or managed, so
> I think everyone saying 'this should be distributed' (me included)
> are in violent agreement. Can we mark that line of discussion as
> 'agreed on' and drop it?
> Thoughts? Feedback?
I would like to add that a project being useless has never been a good
reason to drop it, in my humble opinion ;-)
I think it would be cool to implement a social-network-esque thing for
hackers, if nothing else, to see how it could be abused and how it would
epically fail.
Adam D Bachman
- Adam
Deech
So, to address the "don't solve a problem you don't have" comments:
Firstly, that's a good idea, but you do need to have a little
forethought. I mean, the example given, if you're in a neighborhood
with a noticeable crime rate, you may not yet personally have the
problem of people breaking it, but it's probably a good idea to make
sure it's difficult with the bars on the windows. However, I have
noticed a bit of a trend to over plan the rules in our group, so
working to scale it back from going too far is certainly a good idea.
As far as that applies to this conversation, I don't think there is
necessarily a problem here, but I think that it's prudent to think
about now before it is.
In the case of C-Base, perhaps hurt feelings would have been saved all
around if any visiting hacker was able to see up front that C-Base
welcomes all visiting hackers, but does retain a local members only
area for safety reasons (or whatever reason they want, I'm just
speculating). Then a visiting hacker knows what to expect and how to
behave (not to go snooping around behind the clearly marked Members
Only door) and the locals won't be put in a position of being "rude"
when they enforce their rules for visitors.
So, I say the wiki page is good. If I can get more time then running
in and out, I'll edit it to reflect what I think..
(as I sit here in my jacket ready to go out the door only pausing
briefly to answer an email while my phone sucks up a little charge)
-Deech
Koen Martens
> i always told visitors to metalab that learning to "don't solve
> problems that don't exist yet", was the most important lesson we ever
> learned. i believe strongly enough in that lesson that i think there's
> a general pattern there.
Can't do anything else but agree with this. Over the past months, as
we've been setting up revspace, we've seen a lot of 'hey but maybe this
and that might become a problem, so we should do such and such'. Luckily,
on those occasions we usually reflect a bit and then conclude that 'hey,
but this is not a problem now, let's address it when it indeed is a
problem'. I think it works great, because it enables really fast acting
(we went from nothing to 400m^2 of hackerspace awesomeness in a few months).
And to Sean's blog post: the basic premis of our current plan for collaboration
between hackerspaces in .nl solves a problem that actually exists (those
people who want to support but not want to be member of a single space for
whatever reason), but tries to do this as much as possible from the ground up.
Gr,
Koen