RFC: Unequal use of the space (warning: long)

[Dave B.]

There are certain realities that have set in that are different from when the hive started to now.  Interests and energies have shifted, budgets have changed, demographics are different.  One big thing that is happening is that space has become a major concern.  We have more space coming, but it's not going to fix that issue.  Space will still be limited, there will still be multiple people vying for the same square feet.

This whole thing with wood / storage has immediate and practical concerns.  There is history.  There are personality conflicts.  There are a lot of things that make it a mess.  But there are also some important "big picture" things for the hive which make sorting through this mess in a sensible way important.  I'm going to look at this for a moment without names, specifics or anything particular and try to talk about the situation in general terms.

I'm going to phrase the most abstract issue in the following way:

It is a problem when one member selfishly takes more of a community resource (in this case, storage space, floor space) than is commonly allocated for all members.

Buying into this interpretation, why is this bad?

-Resources are limited

-Selfishly hogging resources means the majority get fewer resources because the one/few are taking more than their fair share

-We are a community oriented space which tries to equitably distribute resources to all

-Therefore selfishly hogging resources is bad.

So far, most of the "solutions" proposed have focused on "fixing" the problem by removing the selfish resource usage.  In fact, we've had a vote to do just that.

But what if there was another way?  

The discussions about buying the offending wood have highlighted something - the hive is not hugely receptive to tying up thousands of dollars of funds.  Someone evidently is completely fine with tying up thousands of dollars of his own money to have convenient access to the same wood.  Can there be a win-win situation?  What's missing for the hive at large to be able to benefit from the willingness of one of its members to buy materials?

The answer I put forward is simple: there needs to be an EASY CLEAR way for membership at large to have access.  How might that be?  A clearly posted, conspicuous price list would probably suffice for me, but that's the kind of thing that can be fought over.  If people at large knew how much wood was, who they needed to pay and there was indeed a group need for it beyond its owner, would it be such a problem?  I guess that depends on your perspective.  My answer would be, "not really."  Why?  A hoarding/sharing/selfishness problem has been turned into an opportunity for the community to have access to a resource.

Further, the wood storage problem is going to happen again, with some other resource or commodity.  Since the beginning, there have been a wide variety of people who become members.  There are members that come down to hang out on Tuesdays and that's it.  There are members who never make weekly meetings but use the space on other occasions.  There are people who come and use things and go home.  There are people who aren't satisfied with what's here that bitch.  There are people who aren't satisfied with what's here and organize a vote.  And then there are people that aren't satisfied with what's here and stubbornly (selfishly?) do what it takes to realize their own vision for the space.

Structure meets bull.  We can either be better prepared for it or we can get our panties in more of a bunch over it.  Regardless of whether someone is trying to "help the space" or help themselves, we're going to have people that just do stuff and need redirected.  I say "redirected" not stopped because members have, can and will continue to be able to bring tools (addressed in a separate, shorter email/proposal), resources/money (which I'm trying to consider here) and energy to the space that are above and beyond what the membership at large feels comfortable committing to.

TL;DR: LET THEM.  BRING IT.  And redirect.  And channel.  And make fucking sure that anything someone does for their own benefit is channeled in such a way that the group can benefit.  It's a lot easier to say, "how about you do this a little differently so others can share" versus, "go home and take your shit with you."  Before asking someone taking more than their fair share to take it away, ask how their self-interest can bring benefit to the group.  Harness it.  Formalize it.  Make people accountable for it.

To this end, I have more documents...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aXPChnLj4iaIDx76zC5aMd9VhQBy8JaE0KkHXz8p_9U/edit

I'm tired.  I'll post the instantiation of that general document for the Coywood situation tomorrow.

-D

[Andrew]

I don't understand why this is a complex issue.  My understanding is that these are rules:
1)  Keep your stuff in your 2 boxes on the shelf, or in temporary woodshop storage
2)  You may leave out a project in process, but you must leave a note with contact info, and a date

Anything that doesn't meet these requirements can, and will, be removed.

[Lorin Edwin Parker]

Dave, 

Thanks for this. This is exactly what we need to keep things like the Ultimaker at hive without me feeling like I have a $2500 liability and will end up spending months on costly repairs, re-calibration, and upgrades out of pocket. 

@Andrew, 1&2 still apply, but there are some more nuanced issues with liability for both Hive and owners of stuff aside from wood & project items. It happens that examples of those issues are more pressing, and current, but Dave is considering 5 years+ of varied usage. 

Finally, I urge everyone to consider the well stated big-picture idea. Let's look to patterns of citizenship and accountability instead of details case by case and make an effort to think about the direction we came from and the trajectory to which we are going. 

Lorin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dave B.]

Andrew,

This isn't about boxes and rules.  It's about finding a way for the community to BENEFIT from the energy and resources of one of its members, even if that member is exercising them out of self-interest.  I sincerely believe that such energy is inevitable, valuable and has a place that does not fit in a box or require a label.  The Hive did not get to where it is now by being rigid - it got here by being flexible, adaptive and COMMUNITY ORIENTED.

Ask not whether a rule is being broken but instead ask how the aberration can be made to benefit everyone?

-D

[Andrew]

I see what you're getting at, I just like simple rules, the simpler the better, when dealing with a large crowd of people.  The more exceptions that get made, the fuzzier the rule becomes, the more likely you are that people are just going to do whatever.  You'll end up with special rules for special folks, which is unfair on the face of it.

If the cost of getting an entire shelf is to occasionally sell something out of it, and break even, I think I'd also like my own shelf, since that sounds _really_ cheap to me.  I've got some plywood I'd like to lay flat as well.

[Lorin Edwin Parker]

Here's what I like:

The agreement is an agreement BEFORE using the space for something "which is not in agreement with accepted norms at the Premises."

Too many disputes which happen here could have been avoided by announcing intentions to do something big before doing it. This makes it necessary and on-record. Perhaps it doesn't need to be as formal, but it's a good plan.

So, Andrew, if you brought a form announcing that you were going to bring in 3 chest freezers and butcher's equipment to do hacker game meat, leadership and membership could question or stop you before we've got 3 huge freezers and blood everywhere.

As far as your sentiments, though:

 In the current debate, I don't think that this will change anything, as no notice was ever given regarding the shelves / wood / CNC you speak of. Plus, I don't like justification ex post facto, and that's always a problem at Hive too. 

So, Dave, I see this as a way to wipe clean and move forward, but let's get everyone on an equal footing before we start making grants of space or usage. No grandfathering?

Finally, definitely needs more than just COO approval. Multiple officers would be better.  

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Andrew <jandr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I see what you're getting at, I just like simple rules, the simpler the better, when dealing with a large crowd of people.  The more exceptions that get made, the fuzzier the rule becomes, the more likely you are that people are just going to do whatever.  You'll end up with special rules for special folks, which is unfair on the face of it.

If the cost of getting an entire shelf is to occasionally sell something out of it, and break even, I think I'd also like my own shelf, since that sounds _really_ cheap to me.  I've got some plywood I'd like to lay flat as well.

--

[Andrew]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:16:14 PM UTC-5, Lorin Edwin Parker wrote:

Here's what I like:

The agreement is an agreement BEFORE using the space for something "which is not in agreement with accepted norms at the Premises."

Too many disputes which happen here could have been avoided by announcing intentions to do something big before doing it. This makes it necessary and on-record. Perhaps it doesn't need to be as formal, but it's a good plan.

Seems reasonable.
 

As far as your sentiments, though:

 In the current debate, I don't think that this will change anything, as no notice was ever given regarding the shelves / wood / CNC you speak of. Plus, I don't like justification ex post facto, and that's always a problem at Hive too. 

If the rules are not being followed, and it's been made clear to the offending party, then it seems time to remove the stuff in question.  If we don't have rules, or we don't enforce rules, then we don't have a civil society, we've got complete anarchy.  The problem with anarchy is that it quickly devolves into might makes right, and the strong prey on the weak.

[Tiffany Bell-Horwath]

if we are going to limit member storage to 2 boxes on a shelf, maybe we should actually enforce it. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Tiffany R. Bell-Horwath

Chemistry Ph.D

Visiting Assistant Professor

University of Cincinnati

[Andrew]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:48:13 PM UTC-5, UDchemist wrote:

if we are going to limit member storage to 2 boxes on a shelf, maybe we should actually enforce it. 

I agree, sounds like it's cheaper than buying more pallet shelving.  Which is not to say I disagree with our purchase of the pallets, but rather to point out it might fix problems in the future.

[Lorin Edwin Parker]

Ah, 

This is when I sigh, take a puff of my pipe, and remark that our little HIVE13 is "growing up"...

--

[Dave B.]

puff puff give mofo