Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

[mikethebee]

Calling all rLab Members,

Hopefully you have heard discussions about a number of Reading community groups that have come together to support a bid for an EU funding call for what I summarise as Crafter/Maker/Repairer/Upcycler Hubs with added Digital and Art inputs to be based in Reading (and linked with London), Aarhus and Barcelona in a tripartite project to reduce waste and support new business models for crafter and creatives.

The group believe it is a really exciting opportunity for Reading and provides enough funding and support to make it worth the effort of bidding. Unfortunately although the call has been open for since November, Reading was only recently identified as an ideal location, and contacted accordingly, with the call closing on the 17th April. The bid is being coordinated by the Digital Catapult together with Fab City in London. The Fab City link gives a good overview of their project.

Reading came to attention with the recent Guardian article about the Repair Café, and publicity from recent hackathons and tech/culture events that show cooperation and links between techies, crafters, makers,artists, and the support given by the local council.

I got involved via my activities with the museums, The Things Network, GROW@GreenPark, Repair Café, ReadingHydro, and being a well known member of rLab was asked to help get Reading Hackspace on board. Each organisation is being asked to complete a letter of support (LoS) and so I forwarded the details of the call and the template letter provided to the rLab directors. They replied that given the short timescale, and their wish to consult the membership regarding offering support in written form, it would not be possible to return the LoS in time.

When I joined Reading Hackspace originally I was impressed by the desire to follow Hackspace Foundation aims of community outreach, open source support and contribution, and welcoming adult all-comers. So I believe it is something many members will support.

Our Reading contact, Mark Stanley, has put together a first draft of the bid that describes what is called an Urban Manufacturing Hub as follows:

 

Create an Urban Manufacturing Hub in Reading for artists, makers and startups that offers:

1. A focal point for urban manufacturing activity in Reading and surrounding rural area, providing

• A home for the Bike Kitchen and Repair Cafe

• Work space for manufacturing/art

• Workshop space

• Social space for meetings, talks, fun

• Advice and help for makers/artists - business, materials, technical

2. Create, maintain and promote a digital directory of makers, artists, markerspaces, workshops, materials suppliers, markets, retail outlets involved in the urban manufacturing ecosystem

• Digital tools to help stakeholders meet each other, strengthen networks, form partnerships and showcase their work

• Active social media presence

• Pooled effort to promote and support urban manufacturing in Reading

3. Coordination of events and outreach activities, including

• A monthly maker market

• Workshops for the public to learn new skills (potential income stream for the hub)

• Consultancy with Reading business - channeling their waste into productive enterprises (potential income stream for the hub)

• Education activities for schools (requires separate funding)

• Publicity and campaigns - eg most sustainable coffee shop, most unsustainable sandwich

• Flagship event -Maker Pride - carnival/festival

There is already feedback from the group members regarding adding more Energy and Circular Economy elements to the draft and so this copy should only be read as a summary of earlier inputs and first draft.

I am in support of the bid and I am sure other members are too. With the rLab company unable to provide a letter itself, it was suggested that I, as a member, can provide an LoS and I want to invite you to add your name to it.

You can find my draft of the letter here. You can add your name in the comments or DM me directly. The document is public so if you do not wish me to add your name to the public copy please advise me accordingly.

I fully appreciate that I am springing this on members, I hope you will understand the geek challenge I face in presenting it and take onboard the optimism of others that has countered my skepticism; and my concur with my desire to be proud of all I believe rLab stands for.

Thank you for helping, or at least reading this far. - Mike.

[Gavin]

I’m afraid it is a humph from me. 

You’re presenting this as if it poses no risks to the ongoing provision of an independent, well-equipped hackspace to Reading, and I don’t think that is the case. Of immediate concern for me are the potential for the proposed workshop to abstract (a) membership and (b) donation of tools and resources from local businesses, which would hinder our ability to offer our workshop on a ‘pay what it is worth to you’ basis, and offer reduced rates to those who are less able to pay. 

I also struggle to see how it could be made to work without endless meetings and governance to decide which of the many supporting organisations got what funding/support, and fear that the grant would come with very restrictive conditions, which would likely serve to stifle rather than nuture the creative aims. Surely a more narrow proposal, aimed more accurately at the gaps in our creative community infrastructure (rather than overlapping with one of the more successful elements of it) would be more effective. 

I support all of the good aims that you set out below but do not personally believe, from the little presented, that this is the way to achieve them

Gavin

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

[Richard Ibbotson]

Personably I support this application for the establishment of a Crafter/Maker/Repairer/Upcycler Hub in Reading. I consider the benefits of wider community awareness of making and upcycling outweigh the risk to existing organisations such as rLab. Previous experience of the creation and operation of parallel local organisations such as Silvers, Connect TVT, and The Bike Kitchen in Reading appear to bear this out.

 

However, I do not think that RMS directors should be party to the application unless they choose to do so as individual members. rLab is a member organisation and a “broad church”. While some of the founders and a gratifyingly large number of members are strong and active supporters of the community outreach activities, it is not an essential part of the services provided to/by members. rLab welcomes members with a range of motivations without question, they may be commercial, educational, personal challenge, etc, and it is not incumbent on members to engage with outreach activities. The continuing support of the greater membership and the directors for use of rLab facilities for community events such as the Repair Café is much appreciated by the event organising members and the community. The rLab directors already have a massive workload in the existing rLab activities, and it would be wrong to load supplemental work and responsibility onto them.

 

My proposal would be to strengthen the existing adhoc rLab special interest group that we have for community outreach activities. This group might be titled the “rLab Community Outreach Group” and comprise members with proven support and/or interest in the community activities related to external action and transformation. While at first sight this may appear to weaken the application, the proven success in community involvement of signatories who are active members of the group, and their commitment going forward to support the creation is of higher value.

 

Do you think we might rewrite the letter around this?

 

Richard

[mikethebee]

Hello Gavin,

Thank you for your response. as the bid goes forward I want to be part of the guiding force that will bring most good to all the parties impacted, including rLab, by boosting the areas of benefit while minimising any dis-benefit. The link to the EU call, START, and SAMSARA docs present loads of examples from existing projects, but are extremely verbose, and I resisted posting them here initially. I am just back on proper internet and will try and pull the links together and post soonest. There is a suggestion for a group meetup, if so I will update you.

Thanks -Mike

[Alex Gibson]

While I share some of Gavin’s concerns for rLab itself if this happens in an ill-informed way, I do see the need in the community, and it would be good to attract the investment.  We at rLab have unique experience which could help any new venture become more than a flash in the pan.  If it’s to be sustainable, I’d rather have rLab members in the tent, involved and helping steer it towards its own niche that does not compete with us head-on and provides a complementary resource.  Meeting and group project space, for example, are things we lack.

 

I agree with Richard that it would be good to revive some more outreach for rLab – attending events, etc.  Also agree that this is not something we should expect from the Directors who have more than enough on their plate (unless of course they want to!).  It doesn’t necessarily need much structure or time commitment, just a bit of a focal point that’s separate from the business of running and improving rLab.

 

So on that basis… count me in Mike

 

Cheers,

 

Alex Gibson

 

+44 7813 810 765    @alexgibson3d    37 Royal Avenue, Reading RG31 4UR

 

admg consulting

 

edumaker limited

 

·         Project management

·         Operations & Process improvement

·         3D Printing

 

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:reading-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mikethebee
Sent: 12 April 2018 21:06
To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

 

Hello Gavin,

Thank you for your response. as the bid goes forward I want to be part of the guiding force that will bring most good to all the parties impacted, including rLab, by boosting the areas of benefit while minimising any dis-benefit. The link to the EU call, START, and SAMSARA docs present loads of examples from existing projects, but are extremely verbose, and I resisted posting them here initially. I am just back on proper internet and will try and pull the links together and post soonest. There is a suggestion for a group meetup, if so I will update you.

Thanks -Mike

 

 

--

[mikethebee]

Hello Richard,

Thank you for your response. I approached the directors as a LoS from the company was thought to have most impact on the judging panel, and I personally didn't want to post to the membership without their prior knowledge and support, I certainly didn't want to create a extra workload or burden for them.

It would be fine to rewrite my LoS draft around a "rLab Community Outreach Group”. I plan to be at the Repair Café on Sunday, maybe we can discuss this after the finish, or if we can meet otherwise.

-Mike

[Bob Dunlop]

On Thu, Apr 12 at 10:02, mikethebee wrote:

I get about three of these a week. Semi articulate promises of funding, from some forign national orginisation.
Have they asked you for some up front money to finalise the paperwork yet?
--
Bob Dunlop

[mikethebee]

Hello Alex,

Thank you for that, though I was trying to avoid tents altogether. It sounds like having an rLab OutReach SIG would be useful whether the bid is successful or not. One of the comments was that people new to Reading are struggling to discover everything that goes on in the area. The bid proposes a lead company (such as RBK) do the grunt work, but support from the breadth of makers, creatives and artists is important.

-Mike 

[mikethebee]

Hello Bob,

This one came to us from a reliable source, publicity about the success of RDG with makers, artists and such, together with an enthusiastic contact at the Digital Catapult who has brought together 10 groups so quickly has put RDG in line to be the third leg of the tripartite city bid that is going forward to the EU. I understand Barcelona and Aarhus are impressed with what they have heard about us and are looking forward to being the other two legs.

Others in the group have been burnt out working on similar bids, that as you say they come fast and promising before dying on the vine. I hope this one is better than that, but there are no guarantees. It does seem that bringing the group together has already been a positive thing.

Hopefully it becomes a thing you can support.

-Mike

[Toby Williams]

Hi Mike, 

Thanks for pulling this together. Any backing we can get into rLab to help perpetuate it forwards is good news. 

However, I would suggest that an important element about rLab is missing so far, in that, rLab is an independent, successful organisation; sustainable and growing. With or with out external support, rLab will still be here in 5 years time. Also, rLab has money to do improvements and grow through it's members and there is loads of great work taking place. I believe that any financial support that might come back to rLab from such an endeavor needs to be material enough to make it worth the involvement.

Toby

[mikethebee]

Thank you Toby, None of the groups involved would want to reduce the effectiveness of the existing successes, including rLab, but rather build on what RDG has achieved, which is the reason we are thought to be a great candidate. One benefit could be having access to tools that we don't wish to host, rather than a direct financial one. This is something we can drive if the bid is successful.

I thank you for reviewing and commenting on the LoS, I have made changes based on Richard's suggestion and your comments. I suddenly have more time to update this today (as my meeting was cancelled) I will take comments until 2pm and then the letter needs forwarding as I just heard that they are compiling the bid this evening.

Can I add you to the list of supporters?

-Mike

[Toby Williams]

I'd like to understand the commitment more before adding myself on. When I get some quiet time, I will do some more reading.

[Alex Gibson]

Sustainability has to be the key goal.

 

rLab, after a lot of years and a lot of work, is sustainable, because it is 100% member supported and does not have to answer to any outside organisation.  Our biggest problem is space, but running a dense, tight operation has meant we are not overstretched.

 

This new venture, being externally funded, could do real good, the question is can it genuinely build something new and complementary, that will eventually be self-sustaining?

 

One thing there is a clear lack of, is raw space.  To host big meetings, to build a big project, to run Bike Kitchen, Repair Café, etc.

 

She will have enough on her own plate, but has there been any discussion with Louize Clarke?  She’s still trying to fix the sustainability model for GROW, as despite the abundant empty office space at GROW, with a change of site ownership her costs were put up to a level that made the model less attractive for many of the target, smallest start-ups.  Despite many warm words over coffee, a long term strategic partnership has yet to be found. 

 

Anything which can sustainably bridge the gap between the many vacant/under-used spaces in Reading, and the many people, artists, makers and even entrepreneurs who can make more interesting use of it, will be a good thing.  

 

Cheers,

 

Alex Gibson

 

+44 7813 810 765    @alexgibson3d    37 Royal Avenue, Reading RG31 4UR

 

admg consulting

 

edumaker limited

 

·         Project management

·         Operations & Process improvement

·         3D Printing

 

From: 'Toby Williams' via Reading Hackspace [mailto:reading-...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: 13 April 2018 11:18
To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

 

I'd like to understand the commitment more before adding myself on. When I get some quiet time, I will do some more reading.

--

[mikethebee]

Hello Alex,

Yes, Louize *is* part of the 'groups' I mentioned, and Mark Mason. Also RG Spaces, Jelly, RDGHydro, Repair Café, the museums, TTN Reading and some others. RBK's Alan Vickers has been in touch and they are still looking for premises and are prepared to look at a shared building. In addition to the Aims I listed in the first post, Mark Stanley has a suggested 3 year plan to get self-sustaining, I am happy to share it. Another group that I realise could be included is the Open Motor Works that had support and premises, but dissolved (as I understand it) because the Initiator's own business became too busy for him to commit time and it had not yet established a management structure. 

Once this LoS is submitted, and the Bid documents compiled (being done this afternoon) and submitted (17 Apr.) we will hear the decision in the autumn with a start in 2019. 

Between now and then a super-group should form to develop the concept in public forum, and if it is sustainable maybe be able to gain other funding as well or instead. Richards suggestion of the rLab COG seems ideal, so maybe RDG COG could be built from COGs in each organisation, seems a great analogy, but I get ahead of myself :) 

Please check the living doc as several changes have been made his morning

-Mike

On Friday, 13 April 2018 11:35:45 UTC+1, Alex Gibson wrote:

Sustainability has to be the key goal.

 

rLab, after a lot of years and a lot of work, is sustainable, because it is 100% member supported and does not have to answer to any outside organisation.  Our biggest problem is space, but running a dense, tight operation has meant we are not overstretched.

 

This new venture, being externally funded, could do real good, the question is can it genuinely build something new and complementary, that will eventually be self-sustaining?

 

One thing there is a clear lack of, is raw space.  To host big meetings, to build a big project, to run Bike Kitchen, Repair Café, etc.

 

She will have enough on her own plate, but has there been any discussion with Louize Clarke?  She’s still trying to fix the sustainability model for GROW, as despite the abundant empty office space at GROW, with a change of site ownership her costs were put up to a level that made the model less attractive for many of the target, smallest start-ups.  Despite many warm words over coffee, a long term strategic partnership has yet to be found. 

 

Anything which can sustainably bridge the gap between the many vacant/under-used spaces in Reading, and the many people, artists, makers and even entrepreneurs who can make more interesting use of it, will be a good thing.  

 

Cheers,

 

Alex Gibson

 

..snip...

[Bob Dunlop]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 12 at 09:45, Bob Dunlop wrote:
...

I must learn not to post after I've had a drink or three.
Please ignore last nights message.


The project actually sounds quite interesting. Although
how much is a duplication of what Rhack is already doing?


--
Bob Dunlop

[Gavin]

Yikes! - the list is getting longer! If i were you I think I’d be focusing on pulling this together into a credible, clever and coherent proposition, rather than throwing yet more into the mix. You’ve had a lot of interesting (and v worthy) groups express an interest - However i really think you need to better target the proposition to be successful, rather than trying to just hit every button you can, else it will look like you don’t have a plan and are just after the funding.

---

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 12:20:15 PM

To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

--

[Tony Short]

Mike contacted myself and the other directors about this and for transparency here is what my thoughts were on the matter:

"With my Director hat on I don't feel it's my job to make decisions on behalf of the membership when it regards strategic partnerships. I would recommend a vote would be needed before Rlab enters into such things. I don't think we have enough time to do this officially before your deadline. So from me it would be a 'no' I'm afraid. We've also made it clear that a 'passport' approach to access isn't feasible for Rlab, and as such our relaxed "donation" policies negate this issue.

 

With my Rlab member hat on I strongly disagree on getting involved with such a bid because:

• The EU won't be funding projects in the UK that are to be delivered after Brexit.
• Rlab shouldn't be cannibalising it's own market, it risks membership income, discretionary rate relief and local business donations.
• I do not have any confidence with a number of the stakeholders that they can provide meaningful results given the funding. More likely any funds will be used to keep salaries topped up or frittered away on useless activity.

 

So I will be voting "no" also as a member."

[Luke Barnard]

Personally I think this letter implies stronger and wider support from the RLab membership than possibly exists. My reasons for thinking this are the use of the RLab logo as a letterhead, and last sentence of the first paragraph, "As members of the rLab Community Outreach Group (COG) within Reading Hackspace, we are pleased to confirm our support of the project.", wihch to me implies that you are speaking on behalf of either RLab as a whole, or a consensus of Rlab, rather than members of RLab who are engaged in outreach and are interested. Without a vote it is impossible to tell how wide support is on such short notice.

Therefore, my suggestion is that it should be made clearer that the support for this proposal is being offered from members of RLab, rather than members of RLab on behalf of RLab.

[mikethebee]

Hello Gavin,

That was the original list contacts that responded, I only included the main ones that have direct connections with rLab. Posting all the discussion would be difficult, rather I posted the proposed bid put together from the condensed inputs. I feel having this core grouping ( out of 60 or more in Reading town alone) is a strength. The project is about creating an ecosystem to support such a range of organisations.

Hello Bob, firstly :), secondly, it should only duplicate what rLab offers where rLab would not wish to share resources. There are some duplicates in Reading already, eg Silvers does lots of furniture repair and woodworking, as does rlab, but rLab doesn't want to offer this as a service.

Hello Luke,

It was suggested that I include the Logo. I can remove it. I liked Richard's suggestion to strengthen the existing COG as a bridge and to show that there is structured community interaction within the membership from the beginning ( it may have become less visible as the membership has increased and maybe the benefits need better highlighting).

Would  "As part of rLab Community Outreach Group (COG) and members of Reading Hackspace ...." be better?

I am sorry that the timescale was so compressed, it was outside my influence, and I really appreciate the help to get this together.

-Mike

[Tony Short]

I'm not aware of a rLab Community Outreach Group (COG). Who are the members, what are its aims, and how is it managed?

T

On Thursday, 12 April 2018 18:02:55 UTC+1, mikethebee wrote:

[Steve Rodway]

Indeed, this and Luke's comment raise important points. While I applaud
the community spirit of those who choose to take part in this, there's
clearly not a strong consensus of support for it yet. I understand
(correct me if wrong) that the directors are unanimously opposed and as
this dicussion is making clear, support amongst the membership is mixed
at best. As such I'm not sure the rLab name or logo should be attached
to this as it may give the false impression that there's general support
for it from rLab and lead the other groups involved to think that they
can expect to call on our membership or resources when that's far from
agreed.

Steve

'Tony Short' via Reading Hackspace wrote:
> I'm not aware of a rLab Community Outreach Group (COG). Who are the
> members, what are its aims, and how is it managed?
>
> T
>
> On Thursday, 12 April 2018 18:02:55 UTC+1, mikethebee wrote:
>
> Calling all rLab Members,
>
>
> Hopefully you have heard discussions about a number of Reading
> community groups that have come together to support a bid for an EU
> funding call

> <http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/ict-32-2018.html>
> for what I summarise as /Crafter/Maker/Repairer/Upcycler Hubs with
> added Digital and Art inputs/ to be based in Reading (and linked

> with London), Aarhus and Barcelona in a tripartite project to reduce
> waste and support new business models for crafter and creatives.
>
>
> The group believe it is a really exciting opportunity for Reading
> and provides enough funding and support to make it worth the effort
> of bidding. Unfortunately although the call has been open for since
> November, Reading was only recently identified as an ideal location,
> and contacted accordingly, with the call closing on the 17th April.
> The bid is being coordinated by the Digital Catapult together with

> Fab City <http://fab.city/about/> in London. The Fab City link gives

> a good overview of their project.
>
>
> Reading came to attention with the recent Guardian article about the
> Repair Café, and publicity from recent hackathons and tech/culture
> events that show cooperation and links between techies, crafters,
> makers,artists, and the support given by the local council.
>
>
> I got involved via my activities with the museums, The Things
> Network, GROW@GreenPark, Repair Café, ReadingHydro, and being a well
> known member of rLab was asked to help get Reading Hackspace on
> board. Each organisation is being asked to complete a letter of
> support (LoS) and so I forwarded the details of the call and the
> template letter provided to the rLab directors. They replied that
> given the short timescale, and their wish to consult the membership
> regarding offering support in written form, it would not be possible
> to return the LoS in time.
>
>
> When I joined Reading Hackspace originally I was impressed by the
> desire to follow Hackspace Foundation aims of community outreach,
> open source support and contribution, and welcoming adult
> all-comers. So I believe it is something many members will support.
>
>
> Our Reading contact, Mark Stanley, has put together a first draft of

> the bid that describes what is called an /Urban Manufacturing Hub/

> as follows:
>
>
>
> Create an Urban Manufacturing Hub in Reading for artists, makers and
> startups that offers:
>
> 1. A focal point for urban manufacturing activity in Reading and
> surrounding rural area, providing
>

> *

>
> A home for the Bike Kitchen and Repair Cafe
>

> *
>
> Work space for manufacturing/art
>
> *
>
> Workshop space
>
> *

>
> Social space for meetings, talks, fun
>

> *

>
> Advice and help for makers/artists - business, materials,
> technical
>
> 2. Create, maintain and promote a digital directory of makers,
> artists, markerspaces, workshops, materials suppliers, markets,
> retail outlets involved in the urban manufacturing ecosystem
>

> *

>
> Digital tools to help stakeholders meet each other, strengthen
> networks, form partnerships and showcase their work
>

> *
>
> Active social media presence
>
> *

>
> Pooled effort to promote and support urban manufacturing in
> Reading
>
> 3. Coordination of events and outreach activities, including
>

> *
>
> A monthly maker market
>
> *

>
> Workshops for the public to learn new skills (potential income
> stream for the hub)
>

> *

>
> Consultancy with Reading business - channeling their waste
> into productive enterprises (potential income stream for the hub)
>

> *

>
> Education activities for schools (requires separate funding)
>

> *

>
> Publicity and campaigns - eg most sustainable coffee shop,
> most unsustainable sandwich
>

> *

>
> Flagship event -Maker Pride - carnival/festival
>
>
> There is already feedback from the group members regarding adding
> more Energy and Circular Economy elements to the draft and so this
> copy should only be read as a summary of earlier inputs and first draft.
>
>
> I am in support of the bid and I am sure other members are too. With
> the rLab company unable to provide a letter itself, it was suggested
> that I, as a member, can provide an LoS and I want to invite you to
> add your name to it.
>
>
> You can find my draft of the letter here

> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hFfANg7BfYB1cL-SWm6F-oANPM5dKrDBpA-Tsx3qL8g/edit?usp=sharing>.

> You can add your name in the comments or DM me directly. The
> document is public so if you do not wish me to add your name to the
> public copy please advise me accordingly.
>
>
> I fully appreciate that I am springing this on members, I hope you
> will understand the geek challenge I face in presenting it and take
> onboard the optimism of others that has countered my skepticism; and
> my concur with my desire to be proud of all I believe rLab stands for.
>
>
> Thank you for helping, or at least reading this far. - Mike.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com>.

[mikethebee]

Hello Tony,

I agreed with COG describing the regular connections made by a number of members, eg Stuart W with Repair Cafe; Me with Museums, TTN, OSHCamp; Alex G. with GROW, Reading Buses; Richard I. with McMurdo, to mention a few, plus it should include less regular connections such as Gavin with the Reading Buses tour, Malcolm N with TeenTech,  Makerfaire and Schools, David P with schools and RaspberryPi, and previous memebers Ryan with many, Gary with Horniman, and our spawning of new hackspaces in the area, TVRRUG etc. This is just a few and I am sure I have missed important ones. Getting this message out is something COG needs to surface more, obviously.

-Mike.

[mikethebee]

Hello Steve, The directors agreed that we can support this as Members of Reading Hackspace (aka rLab), but that the company (Reading Makerspace Ltd.) could not without a vote. As members connected to current outreach initiatives the LoS, as written, is deliberately not committing rLab resources just our support, we are offering to offer all members the chance to join in with projects as we do regularly now, it is your choice to join in or not on a case by case basis.

-Mike

[Alex Gibson]

When it comes to community engagement we’ve always had some bubbling away, and we’ve always had as little structure at rLab as possible. 

 

Things like our attendance at Brighton/Elephant Mini Maker Faires all happened pretty ad hoc due to somebody stepping up and a few others helping. There was however a vague notion that ‘we ought to get together to do something here’.  Thankfully both ‘usual suspects’ and new people have got involved in almost all endeavours.  Any of these activities could be ‘rebranded’ rLab’s ‘COG’ and the meaning would stay the same.

 

I would personally be happy to use an rLab logo, BUT, its meaning will be in the eye of the beholder.   Having it big and bold at the top of the letter, looks a lot like a letterhead and suggests more officialdom than we could be expected to muster.

 

Labelling a group of members as rLab’s Community Outreach Group (for this week!) and sticking a little rLab logo next to them?  That would feel more proportionate to the reality.  I think presenting us as a ‘subcommittee’ level group would generate the right expectations all round!

 

Tony can you visualise what that could look like?

 

Alex Gibson

 

+44 7813 810 765    @alexgibson3d    37 Royal Avenue, Reading RG31 4UR

 

admg consulting

 

edumaker limited

 

·         Project management

·         Operations & Process improvement

·         3D Printing

 

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:reading-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mikethebee

Sent: 13 April 2018 14:19
To: Reading Hackspace

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Rodway]

I'd have to disagree there, the very first paragraph especially when
combined with something that looks like an rLab letterhead, could
certainly be read to mean that you're acting as a representative of rLab
and offering rLab's support. How about re-writing it to make it clear
that's not the case, maybe

"Thank you for inviting Reading Hackspace (aka rLab) to participate
within the Smart Autonomous Manufacturing ecoSystems for Arts-inspired
Repurposing of unused Assets (SAMSARA) project. While rLab isn't able to
offer organisation-level support at the moment, some rLab members,
especially from the rLab Community Outreach Group (COG) are pleased to

confirm our support of the project."

[mikethebee]

Hello Alex,

I have had to freeze the LoS for submission to the doc compilers that are doing their work this afternoon.I have emphasised that rLab is not Reading Makerspace Ltd as best I can. 

I am suggesting to the supporting group that we form something like a SuperCOG to provide channels to each groups COG and capitalise on the enthusiasm. It should have it's own forum to avoid spamming everyone here, I will keep everyone updated as soon as I hear more.

Thank You everyone.

[Tony Short]

As long as it doesn't imply any organisational or broad membership support that's fine.

"Individual Member/s of rLab"

Is my preferred descriptor of those supporting the bid. There is no such community outreach group at present, so that's not really accurate. If however members wish to create such a group in future I would be happy to see a proposal on how it would operate and interface with the rest of the members.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reading-hackspace/fSiceQ9r9Ko/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

[Luke Barnard]

I hope the document hasn't been submitted for compiliing without proper consideration of the recent discussion. Although Mike is correct to point out the tight deadline was unfortunate, at present I have the impression this misfortune has been passed onto members who are uncertainty about this proposition, giving strong preference to those who support this and would like to submit something under the RLab banner.

[Norro]

IMHO it was pretty bad form to go ahead and use the logo in spite of people's objections.  Goes to show people's concern that rlab members interests might be sidelined for the project in general could well be valid if they are disregarded for this first step.

[Gavin]

I agree. I think Steve’s text best captured the position

---

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Norro <st...@tuuk.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 3:46:13 PM

To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Re: Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

IMHO it was pretty bad form to go ahead and use the logo in spite of people's objections.  Goes to show people's concern that rlab members interests might be sidelined for the project in general could well be valid if they are disregarded for this first step.

--

[mikethebee]

Hello Ben, the reference to the logo use came in-between the deadline and my posting about it. I wasn't sure initially but  understood that we could represent ourselves as members of rLab but not as representatives of Reading Makerspace Ltd. It is not commiting the Membership, the Company to anything, or even ourselves to doing more than supporting the project. I sure Basingstoke will want to take the chance to do a similar bid in the future and have the same challenges that I have had, hopefully you will get support from your membership too. -Mike

[Norro]

But you are still misrepresenting rlab as supporting this when you do not have widespread consent from the membership. If you want to say that rlab support this then it is up to you to actually get the support from people, not to merely pretend that you have it.

I don't know why you've brought Basingstoke into this at all but we certainly wouldn't let a rogue member misrepresent our organisation either.

[Toby Williams]

Wait, is this for funding for rLab or for funding for something else?

[Luke Barnard]

Mike-

 It is not committing the Membership, the Company to anything, or even ourselves to doing more than supporting the project.

As you say, it still uses RLabs reputation to support a proposal for which clear support has not been obtained from the majority of the membership. I think it should be explicitly clear in the LoS that the only guaranteed support for this proposal comes from the included signatures, otherwise I consider it misleading.

[Gavin]

Mike. At this point I think it would be helpful if you could clarify what you are proposing to submit, and if you already have, whether it is reversible. I think it is possible to accommodate all of the different views expressed here about how your support should be portrayed, and it would establish trust if you could demonstrate that you have done so 

Gavin

---

From: 'Toby Williams' via Reading Hackspace <reading-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:25:42 PM

To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Re: Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Wait, is this for funding for rLab or for funding for something else?

--

[Gavin]

Mike.

Having read the latest version of the live doc on the way home I am concerned that as it stands it could mislead the reader about the extent to which the proposal is supported by the group. This goes beyond the use of the logo to the actual text itself, as Luke, Steve and others have highlighted. I think it would irresponsible and disrespectful of you to submit it in its current form. I urge you to come back to group with a revised draft that accommodates a broader set of the views expressed.

Gavin

---

From: 'Luke Barnard' via Reading Hackspace <reading-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 5:11:37 PM

To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Re: Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Mike-

 It is not committing the Membership, the Company to anything, or even ourselves to doing more than supporting the project.

As you say, it still uses RLabs reputation to support a proposal for which clear support has not been obtained from the majority of the membership. I think it should be explicitly clear in the LoS that the only guaranteed support for this proposal comes from the included signatures, otherwise I consider it misleading.

--

[mikethebee]

Hello Gavin,

I have submitted it as per my posts. I know you know how logo agreements are challenging and time consuming and how the result of the final choice was accepted. I can ask for it to be removed but am reluctant to do so unless it is unacceptable to the directors whom I consulted ahead of this publication. Please look at the submission in light of the context of how serious this is world terms. EU calls are a regular thing, but this is the first one I have worked so hard to support. I do it for the love of rLab and everything it has given me.

As a member of Reading Hackspace from small beginnings I am proud to have taken this chance to help the organisation we love to stand out in this supporting of Reading makers, crafters, artists and others. I hope our public viewers will see our enthusiasm rather than otherwise.

In good news: I have just heard that as a result of the support given, the share of funds for RDG has been increased to Euro400k if the bid is successful. 

[Steve Rodway]

"Increased" to 400K euro? when we were chatting yesterday you told me it
was 420K euro for reading or did I mis-understand?

Steve

mikethebee wrote:
> Hello Gavin,
>
> I have submitted it as per my posts. I know you know how logo agreements
> are challenging and time consuming and how the result of the final
> choice was accepted. I can ask for it to be removed but am reluctant to
> do so unless it is unacceptable to the directors whom I consulted ahead
> of this publication. Please look at the submission in light of the
> context of how serious this is world terms. EU calls are a regular
> thing, but this is the first one I have worked so hard to support. I do
> it for the love of rLab and everything it has given me.
>
> As a member of Reading Hackspace from small beginnings I am proud to
> have taken this chance to help the organisation we love to stand out in
> this supporting of Reading makers, crafters, artists and others. I hope
> our public viewers will see our enthusiasm rather than otherwise.
>

> I*n good news:* I have just heard that as a result of the support given,

> the share of funds for RDG has been increased to Euro400k if the bid is
> successful.
>
> On Friday, 13 April 2018 18:27:11 UTC+1, Gavin wrote:
>
> Mike.
>
> Having read the latest version of the live doc on the way home I am
> concerned that as it stands it could mislead the reader about the
> extent to which the proposal is supported by the group. This goes
> beyond the use of the logo to the actual text itself, as Luke, Steve
> and others have highlighted. I think it would irresponsible and
> disrespectful of you to submit it in its current form. I urge you to
> come back to group with a revised draft that accommodates a broader
> set of the views expressed.
>
> Gavin
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com>.

[Luke Barnard]

Mike - I am disappointed to hear this, and that you would act with such arrogant disregard of reasonable concerns. I hope in future you will find the capacity to be more considered and respectful.

[Gavin]

Mike. That doesn’t cut it. 

Over the course of the day, a succession of members have raised concerns that you have either dismissed, or met with evasion and whataboutery. That has to end. I think the members deserve to know whether and how you have addressed their concerns in the final draft, and the nature of the representation that you have made. This is not just about the logo, it is also about the text and the extent to which it provides clarity over who is providing support of what kind. Please post a copy of the final letter.

I am also conscious that we are not only not sighted on the letter, but also the other supporting material that has been drafted. If that portrayal of our support has been instrumental in increasing the allocation of funds, then presumably other documents also set out how we would be involved, and implicit in that a commitment on the part of the Hackspace. It would be completely unacceptable to make any such commitments without consultation with the membership. Please post a copy of the description of our involvement in the proposal.

Gavin

[Tom Allen]

Wow this escalated fast. I just got an email privately from Mike asking for my input and only just read all of this. so for transparency I will reply here. 

My opinion pretty much exactly matches Tony's response both on the organisation and personal level.

My concern about the letter itself and the logo is the same as expressed by Gavin etc.

So I don't have much to add other than that. What is even being proposed is not clear to me, sounds a lot like big ideas with no clarity of execution, which in my experience ends up wasting a lot of time for everyone. i personally find the none funded, grassroots organisation of rLab is one of its main benefits and main interest to me. I have been involved in funded projects and Tony expressed well above why I also moved away from that environment. rLab works incredibly well as it is, and although the drive to want everyone to get involved is exciting, I don't feel big funded stuff is the way to go for me personally.

Mike, I really don't want to criticise your efforts as I know your intentions are nothing but positive but I do think you have stepped over the mark here with representing the membership. I know you are very passionate about rLab and Reading makers and have put lots of effort into growing the community and various efforts to spread the word etc which we all value. It is unfortunate a large opportunity came with a short deadline which I hope is the only reason you felt inclined to push so hard on this. Let's try and resolve this positivly for all involved.

Tom Allen

[mikethebee]

Hello Gavin,

The frozen living document that I linked to is the final one submitted, only the highlighting from the template was removed. In submitting it I said to note especially that it is from the rLab members as signed and not from the Ltd company. The template letter was directed at Reading Hackspace, being the reason I contacted the directors first. I have understood that rLab/RHS are the members and RMS is the company. Using COG to form a collective of members already involved in community outreach makes sense to me and provides a way for individual members to subscribe to extra information about such projects that would spam the main forum. I hope that the many other members involved with outreach will subscribe, including yourself. The letter is the complete material submitted by us as members, other groups have submitted theirs completely separately.

This process has been public albeit more truncated than any of us would have wished. The four of us on the letter are supporting the bid as members of RHS and the directors guided me to respond that way. Using the logo will help those compiling the LoS to quickly identify the source of each response. I understand the template form of the letter is a regular method for organising such bids for a consistent formatting of responses.

Steve: The funds have increased to near the original figure, there having been a recent proposed split to fund the proposed activity in London, after further representation from Reading the split has changed again, increasing Reading's share significantly. IIRC the full funding for 3 cities is Euro1.5M giving 1/3rd each. The amount proposed for the Reading UMH comes from the UK 1/3rd and is as I passed on from our Reading coordinator as good news.

Reading Hackspace's support is very important and our visibility is a strength, although we are just four who have put our heads above the parapet, I know the bid is supported more widely. If you are representing members that don't wish to be involved and you can suggest a single definitive edit that addresses the concerns expressed while retaining our support message I will ask the others about submitting it. 

-Mike

Gavin

[mikethebee]

Tom, 

Thank you for your reply here, your input is appreciated which is why I contacted you directly to bring you attention to it, I had seen that you are keeping in touch from afar, and thought your absence of comment might be reserved. You were one of my inspirations when I first joined. Your involvement in community projects and the giving attitude showed me that Reading has something other towns don't and has guided me since. What the projects have achieved has been a delight and reflected so well on what I believed to be the aims of hackspace as embodied in the foundation membership criteria.

It seems that with success and growth this spirit may have changed and I and others have misread things. The short deadline was indeed a challenge to a fully recursive process, but I truly believed that getting RHS support for things we do already would not have been a issue. I have asked Gavin to help draft an alternative set of words that might address better issues you and others have raised. I had hoped the directors would chip in again if I was on the wrong track, as we are all just grass roots ourselves and returned the LoS as such.

-Mike

On Saturday, 14 April 2018 04:55:17 UTC+1, Tom Allen wrote:

Wow this escalated fast. I just got an email privately from Mike asking for my input and only just read all of this. so for transparency I will reply here.

.....snip..... 

[Gavin]

Mike. I think the simplest and quickest way to address concerns about the letter would be to adopt Steve’s proposed text from yesterday and remove the logo. Those in favour say ‘Aye’

Gavin

---

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 10:41:16 AM

To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Re: Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

[Tony Short]

Mike, please do as Gavin requests.

Tony 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/reading-hackspace/fSiceQ9r9Ko/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

[Luke Barnard]

I think Gavin's suggestion is reasonable. "Aye.

[mikethebee]

I have made this and some other small changes that I hope are approved. I will submit as a replacement for the previous version once I confirm with the other sigs. -Mike

On Saturday, 14 April 2018 11:16:30 UTC+1, Tony Short wrote:

Mike, please do as Gavin requests.

Tony 

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 at 11:13, Gavin <> wrote:

Mike. I think the simplest and quickest way to address concerns about the letter would be to adopt Steve’s proposed text from yesterday and remove the logo. Those in favour say ‘Aye’

Gavin

---

...snip...

[David Price]

Unfortunately I have come late to this thread (I get digest emails) and to the initiative.

I agree that this could be a good opportunity for the local community and fills a need. I agree it should be based on individual support rather than some kind of "rlab" corporate presence which doesn't actually exist - rlab has no such mandate to represent our interests or commitment in this sort of thing.

As one of the members who has been involved in independent and rlab related community activities I welcome the ideas and might even want to be involved but there is a distinct lack of information and engagement.

I am a bit concerned as to how this project would be organised and led, what funds would actually be used for (eg "Liaison personnel"?), entanglements associated with the funds and believe the summary above falls short on exploiting effective routes to community engagement.

I would be interested in taking part in such a CoG but I don't know enough to commit to the specific EU initiative at this stage.

David

On Thursday, 12 April 2018 20:57:38 UTC+1, Richard Ibbotson wrote:

Personably I support this application for the establishment of a Crafter/Maker/Repairer/Upcycler Hub in Reading. I consider the benefits of wider community awareness of making and upcycling outweigh the risk to existing organisations such as rLab. Previous experience of the creation and operation of parallel local organisations such as Silvers, Connect TVT, and The Bike Kitchen in Reading appear to bear this out.

 

However, I do not think that RMS directors should be party to the application unless they choose to do so as individual members. rLab is a member organisation and a “broad church”. While some of the founders and a gratifyingly large number of members are strong and active supporters of the community outreach activities, it is not an essential part of the services provided to/by members. rLab welcomes members with a range of motivations without question, they may be commercial, educational, personal challenge, etc, and it is not incumbent on members to engage with outreach activities. The continuing support of the greater membership and the directors for use of rLab facilities for community events such as the Repair Café is much appreciated by the event organising members and the community. The rLab directors already have a massive workload in the existing rLab activities, and it would be wrong to load supplemental work and responsibility onto them.

 

My proposal would be to strengthen the existing adhoc rLab special interest group that we have for community outreach activities. This group might be titled the “rLab Community Outreach Group” and comprise members with proven support and/or interest in the community activities related to external action and transformation. While at first sight this may appear to weaken the application, the proven success in community involvement of signatories who are active members of the group, and their commitment going forward to support the creation is of higher value.

 

Do you think we might rewrite the letter around this?

 

Richard

 

 

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Gavin
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 7:44 PM
To: reading-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

 

 

I’m afraid it is a humph from me. 

 

You’re presenting this as if it poses no risks to the ongoing provision of an independent, well-equipped hackspace to Reading, and I don’t think that is the case. Of immediate concern for me are the potential for the proposed workshop to abstract (a) membership and (b) donation of tools and resources from local businesses, which would hinder our ability to offer our workshop on a ‘pay what it is worth to you’ basis, and offer reduced rates to those who are less able to pay. 

 

I also struggle to see how it could be made to work without endless meetings and governance to decide which of the many supporting organisations got what funding/support, and fear that the grant would come with very restrictive conditions, which would likely serve to stifle rather than nuture the creative aims. Surely a more narrow proposal, aimed more accurately at the gaps in our creative community infrastructure (rather than overlapping with one of the more successful elements of it) would be more effective. 

 

I support all of the good aims that you set out below but do not personally believe, from the little presented, that this is the way to achieve them

 

Gavin

 

 

On 12 Apr 2018, at 18:02, mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Calling all rLab Members,

Hopefully you have heard discussions about a number of Reading community groups that have come together to support a bid for an EU funding call for what I summarise as Crafter/Maker/Repairer/Upcycler Hubs with added Digital and Art inputs to be based in Reading (and linked with London), Aarhus and Barcelona in a tripartite project to reduce waste and support new business models for crafter and creatives.

 

The group believe it is a really exciting opportunity for Reading and provides enough funding and support to make it worth the effort of bidding. Unfortunately although the call has been open for since November, Reading was only recently identified as an ideal location, and contacted accordingly, with the call closing on the 17th April. The bid is being coordinated by the Digital Catapult together with Fab City in London. The Fab City link gives a good overview of their project.

 

Reading came to attention with the recent Guardian article about the Repair Café, and publicity from recent hackathons and tech/culture events that show cooperation and links between techies, crafters, makers,artists, and the support given by the local council.

I got involved via my activities with the museums, The Things Network, GROW@GreenPark, Repair Café, ReadingHydro, and being a well known member of rLab was asked to help get Reading Hackspace on board. Each organisation is being asked to complete a letter of support (LoS) and so I forwarded the details of the call and the template letter provided to the rLab directors. They replied that given the short timescale, and their wish to consult the membership regarding offering support in written form, it would not be possible to return the LoS in time.

 

When I joined Reading Hackspace originally I was impressed by the desire to follow Hackspace Foundation aims of community outreach, open source support and contribution, and welcoming adult all-comers. So I believe it is something many members will support.

 

Our Reading contact, Mark Stanley, has put together a first draft of the bid that describes what is called an Urban Manufacturing Hub as follows:

 

Create an Urban Manufacturing Hub in Reading for artists, makers and startups that offers:

1. A focal point for urban manufacturing activity in Reading and surrounding rural area, providing

·         A home for the Bike Kitchen and Repair Cafe

·         Work space for manufacturing/art

·         Workshop space

·         Social space for meetings, talks, fun

·         Advice and help for makers/artists - business, materials, technical

2. Create, maintain and promote a digital directory of makers, artists, markerspaces, workshops, materials suppliers, markets, retail outlets involved in the urban manufacturing ecosystem

·         Digital tools to help stakeholders meet each other, strengthen networks, form partnerships and showcase their work

·         Active social media presence

·         Pooled effort to promote and support urban manufacturing in Reading

3. Coordination of events and outreach activities, including

·         A monthly maker market

·         Workshops for the public to learn new skills (potential income stream for the hub)

·         Consultancy with Reading business - channeling their waste into productive enterprises (potential income stream for the hub)

·         Education activities for schools (requires separate funding)

·         Publicity and campaigns - eg most sustainable coffee shop, most unsustainable sandwich

·         Flagship event -Maker Pride - carnival/festival

 

There is already feedback from the group members regarding adding more Energy and Circular Economy elements to the draft and so this copy should only be read as a summary of earlier inputs and first draft.

 

I am in support of the bid and I am sure other members are too. With the rLab company unable to provide a letter itself, it was suggested that I, as a member, can provide an LoS and I want to invite you to add your name to it.

 

You can find my draft of the letter here. You can add your name in the comments or DM me directly. The document is public so if you do not wish me to add your name to the public copy please advise me accordingly.

 

I fully appreciate that I am springing this on members, I hope you will understand the geek challenge I face in presenting it and take onboard the optimism of others that has countered my skepticism; and my concur with my desire to be proud of all I believe rLab stands for.

Thank you for helping, or at least reading this far. - Mike.

 

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

[mikethebee]

Hello David,

Thank you for you post, we will know if the bid is successful in October. In the meantime I will help to make the COG achieve its potential. The start of this needs to be getting the ideas for a RDG UMH pulled together, communicated and linked with rLab either through individual members or through a strategic partnership if the Membership agree. 

I have had to focus on getting the LoS returned and leave people to follow the links I posted originally. At the moment it is as nebulus are bringing artists and makers together to help the existing organisations do great things. 

-Mike

[Norro]

So who actually gets this money?  It seems from following the link that this is connected with FabLab, surely to bring one of those to Reading in competition with rlab would be detrimental rather than supportive?

[mikethebee]

Hello Ben,

I have submitted the LoSv2 as per previous posts. Happen-chance I met with our RDG contact today, for our separate SmartRGGIoT presentation preparation, and I am updated that given the requirement for there being a lead company in the bid, and RMS and others not being able to offer to be the lead within the time limit, Thingitude is now the lead company. 

Thus if the bid is successful, Thingitude will receive the funding. It will support the RDG-UMH project and all the contributors as per the proposal. I am keen for Reading Hackspace to be at the core of RDGUMH and hopefully the COG can achieve this. If City Fab or FabLab comes to Reading it will be because they offer something that is not available already.

-Mike

[Stuart Ward]

Chaps

I am concerned that a few members saying that they dont agree with this project, and that means that the group that does want to be involved cannot claim to be from rLab, or use the logo. That is not the sort of organisation we are. That sounds stifling to me.

I also think that this is not a zero sum game, more hackspaces does not mean less for rLab. Repair Cafe, Bike Kitchen, have both spun out of rLab and I believe encouraged more membership of rLab in the process. A more art based hackspace would fill a different kind of niche, not directly compete for some limited membership.

Stuart

[Norro]

I think the issue is not that people don't want to support things. Its that there wasn't enough explanation of what exactly this bid was for, even now it is not entirely clear. It is understandable that people are apprehensive of using the rlab name to get money for some unknown person to do some unknown thing.

[Steve]

It's not that we were preventing people getting involved from saying
they were from rLab, indeed the letter that was finally agreed makes it
clear that the people volunteering were from rLab. It's that we were
concerned that those volunteering shouldn't give the impression that
they're acting on behalf of the whole group and possibly committing us
to using the lab's resources to support this when the discussion here
made it clear there were more members opposed than supporting.

Steve

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com>.

[Gavin]

There are no rules covering use of our identity, but it seems to me to be a matter of common-sense and decency that the use of it in support of an initiative that could have significant implications for the use of our resources, and perhaps even our financial sustainability, should be brought to the wider group for consultation. That consultation should be timely, transparent and sincere, and I think that the people bringing the proposal should be ready to accept that rLab is not the vehicle for the them to express their support if they cannot build a consensus around the idea. 

The people who raised their concerns here in this thread, are not a small handful of peripheral members, but a collection of people who are making considerable, ongoing personal contributions to the continuing success of the hackspace. Their views should be respected as such, rather than dismissed in an off-hand manner.

Going forward, I think we need to discuss Mike’s COG initiative and set down some ground rules about the bounds in which it should operate. It could be a strong force to represent us in the community, but it can only be such if it is genuinely representing the wishes of our members. I do not think that the creation fo a state-aided alternative to the hackspace on our doorstep is one of those wishes.

Gavin

[Gavin]

I would still like to see the final version of the letter so that we can understand the combined impacts of the changes. I can see no reason why you cannot post that now, to give fellow members the opportunity to reassure themselves that it reflects their views in advance of the submission deadline.

Gavin

[mikethebee]

Hello Gavin,

The letter has been and still is at the link I posted originally. I guess it won't be a surprise to those pushing for that paragraph to be changed, that adding the statement as instructed has made it a letter of not-support and so is deemed by the compliers to harm the bid rather than help.So neither letter has been submitted forward, and the bid will thus not include any submission from rLab. The bid is now closed for submissions.

I am now unsure that rLab is worthy of being called Reading Hackspace any more.

For those that haven't expressed an opinion on this so far, I have been assured that we are still respected as individual Makers in Reading and can benefit if the bid is successful, it just won't be because our hackspace leaders stepped up when called upon :(

-Mike

[Hugo Mills]

Speaking entirely personally, If I were approached on what's
effectively two days' notice (with most of that over the weekend) to
contribute to engage in _any_ kind of funding bid, my response would
be a simple refusal. The timescale is far too short to do anything
sensibly, with enough knowledge of the process to make a positive
contribution and to understand the proposal.

If rLab's support was so important, why was it left until so late
in the process to make contact? From your original mail, it looks like
there was a sudden volte-face at the last minute to switch the UK
location to Reading. This doesn't speak particularly well of the core
organisers of the bid.

I recently put together a funding bid on short notice. With only
two partners involved, located in the same institution, we barely had
enough time to get something useful together, and that took us four
weeks. Expecting to achieve anything positive or useful in a few days
is just laughable (and at least for rLab, the attempt appears to have
done precisely the opposite, if only intramurally).

Hugo.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:29:12PM -0700, mikethebee wrote:
> Hello Gavin,
> The letter has been and still is at the link

> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hFfANg7BfYB1cL-SWm6F-oANPM5dKrDBpA-Tsx3qL8g/edit?usp=sharing> I

> posted originally. I guess it won't be a surprise to those pushing for that
> paragraph to be changed, that adding the statement as instructed has made

> it a letter of *not-support* and so is deemed by the compliers to harm the

> bid rather than help.So neither letter has been submitted forward, and the
> bid will thus not include any submission from rLab. The bid is now closed
> for submissions.
>
> I am now unsure that rLab is worthy of being called Reading Hackspace any
> more.
>
> For those that haven't expressed an opinion on this so far, I have been
> assured that we are still respected as individual Makers in Reading and can
> benefit if the bid is successful, it just won't be because our hackspace
> leaders stepped up when called upon :(
>
> -Mike
>
> On Sunday, 15 April 2018 13:30:36 UTC+1, Gavin wrote:
> >
> > I would still like to see the final version of the letter so that we can
> > understand the combined impacts of the changes. I can see no reason why you
> > cannot post that now, to give fellow members the opportunity to reassure
> > themselves that it reflects their views in advance of the submission
> > deadline.
> >
> > Gavin
> >
>

--
Hugo Mills | Anyone using a computer to generate random numbers
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | is, of course, in a state of sin.
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 | Jon von Neumann

[Steve]

I appreciate this must have been very disappointing for you, given the
work you put into this. It's a shame it was all done on such short
notice. If we had had longer, maybe a week or two, then there would have
been time to investigate the bid fully and sort out exactly what was
being offered and what we could have contributed. With less than 24
hours between it first being mentioned on the list and the letter being
frozen for submission there was never going to be enough time to even
establish the scope of what was being suggested never mind for a clear
consensus of support to emerge.

It is interesting to note that since the first letter was deemed useful
and the second not, the organizers clearly HAD been mislead into
thinking it was the entire organization and resources of rLab that were
being offered, which validates some of the concerns raised.

Steve

mikethebee wrote:
> Hello Gavin,
> The letter has been and still is at the link

> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hFfANg7BfYB1cL-SWm6F-oANPM5dKrDBpA-Tsx3qL8g/edit?usp=sharing> I

> posted originally. I guess it won't be a surprise to those pushing for
> that paragraph to be changed, that adding the statement as instructed

> has made it a letter of /not-support/ and so is deemed by the compliers

> to harm the bid rather than help.So neither letter has been submitted
> forward, and the bid will thus not include any submission from rLab. The
> bid is now closed for submissions.
>
> I am now unsure that rLab is worthy of being called Reading Hackspace
> any more.
>
> For those that haven't expressed an opinion on this so far, I have been
> assured that we are still respected as individual Makers in Reading and
> can benefit if the bid is successful, it just won't be because our
> hackspace leaders stepped up when called upon :(
>
> -Mike
>
> On Sunday, 15 April 2018 13:30:36 UTC+1, Gavin wrote:
>
> I would still like to see the final version of the letter so that we
> can understand the combined impacts of the changes. I can see no
> reason why you cannot post that now, to give fellow members the
> opportunity to reassure themselves that it reflects their views in
> advance of the submission deadline.
>
> Gavin
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com>.

[mikethebee]

Steve, there was no intention to mislead and your suggestion otherwise is bad, I was responding after talking to Tony as the only director to respond to the letter I had sent the week previous while abroad. He initially said I could post in the form I did. It seems rLab is being run by a small group and not the directors as such. You are all great active members, but I don't see how you can represent all the members any more than us four who support the outreach to a wider community in Reading.. Being more familiar with such bids they know that actively NOT supporting is different from supporting a subset of members ambitions to be open and flexible. 

The  other organisations were able to respond in a positive manner, so this is not just a loss for the bid team, but reflects badly on rLab which has in the past been promoting open involvement in the community. I had missed that we are now to be inward looking and exclusive. If this is not the case then maybe a meeting of the membership should be arranged to address what the message should be. 

It does make me think that there is a need for an open hackspace if rLab is to not to be the one

Nite -Mike

[Gavin]

Mike. I absolutely dispute your suggestion that rLab is inward looking and exclusive. My perception is that there are more people actively involved in running and making the organisation a success than at any point previously during the four years that I have been a member. The membership is also larger and more diverse than ever before, with more things being produced, and more training and workshops being provided on a broader range of topics.

It is clear that you are disappointed that you have been unable to secure a consensus in support of the bid. I understand and respect that. However I do not think that should reflect badly on rLab at all. Members have engaged politely and positively, and made suggestions on how it could be improved despite being provided with limited information and very little time to respond.

Nor is it the case that one group of members is more important than another. It is just that to make such a significant and potentially far-reaching commitment, a consensus was required. For one group to push ahead with the idea in the name of the hackspace without that broader consensus would have been exclusive.

Gavin

[Richard Ibbotson]

Gavin, I think you should make serious reconsideration of what you are saying here.

I fear that you, as appointed media voice for rLab, are believing what you write and say, rather than making the serious analysis that I think you should be capable of.

This is maybe time for rLab to define some more clear objectives even if those are more limited in respect of the outside community than some of the early members wanted and focus on those. I agree that with Mike that rLab is becoming more inward looking and exclusive, but this is clearly still meeting a growing demand. The reducing diversity is likely a consequence of limited resources and space. For rLab to be able to serve a part of the demand for makers and hobbyists in Reading is a massive contribution, but please respect that it only meets a small part of the potential and do not impede those with greater objectives. I think you must determine whether the greater activity is intensity or diversity.

Maybe you are deaf to the "Alpha Member" tone of many of the posts on this and other recent topics, but I urge you to make a more broad-minded analysis on this too.

Those rLab members who have continued to maintain links to with the outside community must now feel disenfranchised and distrusted, maybe that is intentional, but how would you propose to replace this or retreat from external community activities for rLab?

How do you see the opportunities for multiple Hackspaces in Reading based on different social models?

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Gavin
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 10:59 PM
To: reading-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Mike. I absolutely dispute your suggestion that rLab is inward looking and exclusive. My perception is that there are more people actively involved in running and making the organisation a success than at any point previously during the four years that I have been a member. The membership is also larger and more diverse than ever before, with more things being produced, and more training and workshops being provided on a broader range of topics.

It is clear that you are disappointed that you have been unable to secure a consensus in support of the bid. I understand and respect that. However I do not think that should reflect badly on rLab at all. Members have engaged politely and positively, and made suggestions on how it could be improved despite being provided with limited information and very little time to respond.

Nor is it the case that one group of members is more important than another It is just that to make such a significant and potentially far-reaching commitment, a consensus was required. For one group to push ahead with the idea in the name of the hackspace without that broader consensus would have been exclusive.

Gavin

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 22:19, mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve, there was no intention to mislead and your suggestion otherwise is bad, I was responding after talking to Tony as the only director to respond to the letter I had sent the week previous while abroad. He initially said I could post in the form I did. It seems rLab is being run by a small group and not the directors as such. You are all great active members, but I don't see how you can represent all the members any more than us four who support the outreach to a wider community in Reading.. Being more familiar with such bids they know that actively NOT supporting is different from supporting a subset of members ambitions to be open and flexible.
>
> The other organisations were able to respond in a positive manner, so this is not just a loss for the bid team, but reflects badly on rLab which has in the past been promoting open involvement in the community. I had missed that we are now to be inward looking and exclusive. If this is not the case then maybe a meeting of the membership should be arranged to address what the message should be.
>
> It does make me think that there is a need for an open hackspace if rLab is to not to be the one
>
> Nite -Mike
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

[Norro]

I don't think it's really fair to throw your toys out of the pram and blame anyone else Mike.  In your OP you said you were asked to get rlab on board but instead of explaining what the bid was you ignored people's concerns and tried to misrepresent that you had the support of the group anyway when it wasn't forthcoming, no questions asked. That is not us letting you down, it is you not being reasonable.

From my experience of bidding for grants, a nebulous idea has little to no chance of being funded due to the high possibility of fraud, so if you can't tell us exactly what the bid is for then how can you have possibly submitted anything detailed enough in the application?

[Steve]

mikethebee wrote:
> Steve, there was no intention to mislead and your suggestion otherwise
> is bad,

None of my posts state that you had intentionally misled people. We all
know that it's hard to judge tone and sub-text in a purely text-based
communication; the different reactions to the two letters strongly
indicate that people were misled, that does not necessarily imply that
anyone intended for that to happen.

> I was responding after talking to Tony as the only director to
> respond to the letter I had sent the week previous while abroad. He
> initially said I could post in the form I did. It seems rLab is being
> run by a small group and not the directors as such. You are all great
> active members, but I don't see how you can represent all the members
> any more than us four who support the outreach to a wider community in
> Reading..

Indeed this is at the core of the point I was making, so I'm glad to see
we are in agreement on that. In situations where it's clear that there
is no consensus on how to proceed I feel it's important that we all take
care to avoid giving the impression (even unintentionally) that we're
speaking on behalf of the entirety rLab rather than on our own behalf or
that of people who've specifically said they agree, and especially so
when dealing with outside organizations who may act on that impression
and complicate matters.

> Being more familiar with such bids they know that actively NOT
> supporting is different from supporting a subset of members ambitions to
> be open and flexible.

That's very true, and I would have preferred a much more nuanced
approach. Had there been even a little more time we might have been able
to make an expression of interest and work with those organizing the bid
to clarify what exactly was being proposed, how it would work and how we
could have helped. I think that with more time and information it would
probably have been a lot easier to have got support from more members as
we would have had a clearer idea of what we were being asked to commit
to doing. Unfortunately once that initial letter was sent that gave the
impression there was formal support from all of rLab it forced the
decision. At that point either rLab had to actually give full support
which would be a very open-ended commitment from a membership who were
clearly divided on the issue, or amend the submission to indicate that
we didn't, an encouraging but less committal response was no longer an
option.

Hopefully this is something positive that we can take away from this
experience, so that there's a better chance of having the time and
clarity to achieve a broad base of support the next time there's an
opportunity like this.

Steve

[Gavin]

I think ‘the hackspace is as the hackspace does’. If you and other members would like to see a change in the balance of activity that we do, then step forward and lead a change. I think there’s a large appetite in the group to get involved in outreach activities, but many people find it difficult to find the time to organise them. I don’t think that hard-baking it into some ‘rLab objectives’ (for what is, after all, a loose and free-minded rabble) will make a jot of difference. What’s required to make this sort of initiative a success is someone to enthuse fellow members, galvanise action, and where it draws significantly on rLab resources, make the case for and build a consensus around that. My perception is that that is how it has always been, but correct me if you think I have that wrong.

I’m not deaf to the the tone of these email exchanges, and I noticed a sharp change during the course of Friday. I’d attribute that to Mike’s decision to submit the document without taking others’ views onboard. That has resulted in a pretty robust exchange of views, but it is not as if it has descended into “you’re an arsehat” territory (despite there being points where it easily could have). I think people have been very restrained.

As suggested, I’ve reflected on my comments about diversity and inclusiveness, and concluded that I stand by them - at least in terms of diversity of membership, diversity of activity and involvement in running of the hackspace. Or is it something else you were driving at?

Gavin

---

From: 'Richard Ibbotson' via Reading Hackspace <reading-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:17:05 AM
To: reading-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

 

[Stuart Ward]

The thing that I like about rLab is that it is (or was) Anarchistic. I mean that in the truest form in that there was no hierarchy. Everyone was the same, there are no leaders. If you wanted to do a project and it was bigger than just you , you would need to gather like minded individuals and do it. There should not be anyone to approve your project. There are limitations to this, where the project impacts what others want to do.

This is my objection to the harsh language mainly directed at Mike, as the spokesperson for the group, it was not just him proposing this, but a number of members. Not all of us had the time on Friday to get on the list and explain this. But we should not have to. If we wanted to do this and there was no impediment on other hackspace users that is OK then. There was no implication that we were committing any members of the hackspace to do anything, and there is no such concept of the hackspace doing something. Individuals commit themselves and that it it. 

The directors are there to make sure the space runs, not to approve or disapprove projects. 

The level of vitriol expressed in some of the messages causes me to question whether I still want to be a member of this group.

--
Stuart Ward M +44 7782325143

On 16 April 2018 at 11:04, Gavin <gavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think ‘the hackspace is as the hackspace does’. If you and other members would like to see a change in the balance of activity that we do, then step forward and lead a change. I think there’s a large appetite in the group to get involved in outreach activities, but many people find it difficult to find the time to organise them. I don’t think that hard-baking it into some ‘rLab objectives’ (for what is, after all, a loose and free-minded rabble) will make a jot of difference. What’s required to make this sort of initiative a success is someone to enthuse fellow members, galvanise action, and where it draws significantly on rLab resources, make the case for and build a consensus around that. My perception is that that is how it has always been, but correct me if you think I have that wrong.

I’m not deaf to the the tone of these email exchanges, and I noticed a sharp change during the course of Friday. I’d attribute that to Mike’s decision to submit the document without taking others’ views onboard. That has resulted in a pretty robust exchange of views, but it is not as if it has descended into “you’re an arsehat” territory (despite there being points where it easily could have). I think people have been very restrained.

As suggested, I’ve reflected on my comments about diversity and inclusiveness, and concluded that I stand by them - at least in terms of diversity of membership, diversity of activity and involvement in running of the hackspace. Or is it something else you were driving at?

Gavin

---

From: 'Richard Ibbotson' via Reading Hackspace <reading-hackspace@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:17:05 AM

To: reading-hackspace@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Gavin, I think you should make serious reconsideration of what you are saying here.

I fear that you, as appointed media voice for rLab, are believing what you write and say, rather than making the serious analysis that I think you should be capable of.

This is maybe time for rLab to define some more clear objectives even if those are more limited in respect of the outside community than some of the early members wanted and focus on those. I agree that with Mike that rLab is becoming more inward looking and exclusive, but this is clearly still meeting a growing demand. The reducing diversity is likely a consequence of limited resources and space. For rLab to be able to serve a part of the demand for makers and hobbyists in Reading is a massive contribution, but please respect that it only meets a small part of the potential and do not impede those with greater objectives. I think you must determine whether the greater activity is intensity or diversity.

Maybe you are deaf to the "Alpha Member" tone of many of the posts on this and other recent topics, but I urge you to make a more broad-minded analysis on this too.

Those rLab members who have continued to maintain links to with the outside community must now feel disenfranchised and distrusted, maybe that is intentional, but how would you propose to replace this or retreat from external community activities for rLab?

How do you see the opportunities for multiple Hackspaces in Reading based on different social models?

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: reading-hackspace@googlegroups.com <reading-hackspace@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Gavin
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 10:59 PM
To: reading-hackspace@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Mike. I absolutely dispute your suggestion that rLab is inward looking and exclusive. My perception is that there are more people actively involved in running and making the organisation a success than at any point previously during the four years that I have been a member. The membership is also larger and more diverse than ever before, with more things being produced, and more training and workshops being provided on a broader range of topics.

It is clear that you are disappointed that you have been unable to secure a consensus in support of the bid. I understand and respect that. However I do not think that should reflect badly on rLab at all. Members have engaged politely and positively, and made suggestions on how it could be improved despite being provided with limited information and very little time to respond.

Nor is it the case that one group of members is more important than another It is just that to make such a significant and potentially far-reaching commitment, a consensus was required. For one group to push ahead with the idea in the name of the hackspace without that broader consensus would have been exclusive.

Gavin

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 22:19, mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve, there was no intention to mislead and your suggestion otherwise is bad, I was responding after talking to Tony as the only director to respond to the letter I had sent the week previous while abroad. He initially said I could post in the form I did. It seems rLab is being run by a small group and not the directors as such. You are all great active members, but I don't see how you can represent all the members any more than us four who support the outreach to a wider community in Reading.. Being more familiar with such bids they know that actively NOT supporting is different from supporting a subset of members ambitions to be open and flexible.
>
> The  other organisations were able to respond in a positive manner, so this is not just a loss for the bid team, but reflects badly on rLab which has in the past been promoting open involvement in the community. I had missed that we are now to be inward looking and exclusive. If this is not the case then maybe a meeting of the membership should be arranged to address what the message should be.
>
> It does make me think that there is a need for an open hackspace if rLab is to not to be the one
>
> Nite -Mike
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hackspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hackspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hackspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Norro]

I don't think that is reasonable.  No one was saying you can't do the thing, just that you can't speak for everyone else when you haven't made the effort to get people on board.  The idea that you should get backing without having to give even the base info to tell that it is legitimate is absurd.  Plus Mike brought a backlash on himself by deliberately going against people's wishes instead of making any attempt to convince anyone, no one else is responsible for the consequence of his choice to do that.

Personally I'm not even opposed to the idea in principle, I just asked for more info, no one has bothered to give that even now!

Instead of making disingenuous accusations of how rlab isn't what it was, what you should be learning from this is that you need to be more open and informative and you might get the support. Not try to just barge your idea through regardless of people's questions or concerns.

On Monday, 16 April 2018 17:15:48 UTC+1, Stuart Ward wrote:

The thing that I like about rLab is that it is (or was) Anarchistic. I mean that in the truest form in that there was no hierarchy. Everyone was the same, there are no leaders. If you wanted to do a project and it was bigger than just you , you would need to gather like minded individuals and do it. There should not be anyone to approve your project. There are limitations to this, where the project impacts what others want to do.

This is my objection to the harsh language mainly directed at Mike, as the spokesperson for the group, it was not just him proposing this, but a number of members. Not all of us had the time on Friday to get on the list and explain this. But we should not have to. If we wanted to do this and there was no impediment on other hackspace users that is OK then. There was no implication that we were committing any members of the hackspace to do anything, and there is no such concept of the hackspace doing something. Individuals commit themselves and that it it. 

The directors are there to make sure the space runs, not to approve or disapprove projects. 

The level of vitriol expressed in some of the messages causes me to question whether I still want to be a member of this group.

--
Stuart Ward M +44 7782325143

On 16 April 2018 at 11:04, Gavin <gavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think ‘the hackspace is as the hackspace does’. If you and other members would like to see a change in the balance of activity that we do, then step forward and lead a change. I think there’s a large appetite in the group to get involved in outreach activities, but many people find it difficult to find the time to organise them. I don’t think that hard-baking it into some ‘rLab objectives’ (for what is, after all, a loose and free-minded rabble) will make a jot of difference. What’s required to make this sort of initiative a success is someone to enthuse fellow members, galvanise action, and where it draws significantly on rLab resources, make the case for and build a consensus around that. My perception is that that is how it has always been, but correct me if you think I have that wrong.

I’m not deaf to the the tone of these email exchanges, and I noticed a sharp change during the course of Friday. I’d attribute that to Mike’s decision to submit the document without taking others’ views onboard. That has resulted in a pretty robust exchange of views, but it is not as if it has descended into “you’re an arsehat” territory (despite there being points where it easily could have). I think people have been very restrained.

As suggested, I’ve reflected on my comments about diversity and inclusiveness, and concluded that I stand by them - at least in terms of diversity of membership, diversity of activity and involvement in running of the hackspace. Or is it something else you were driving at?

Gavin

---

From: 'Richard Ibbotson' via Reading Hackspace <reading-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:17:05 AM

To: reading-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Gavin, I think you should make serious reconsideration of what you are saying here.

I fear that you, as appointed media voice for rLab, are believing what you write and say, rather than making the serious analysis that I think you should be capable of.

This is maybe time for rLab to define some more clear objectives even if those are more limited in respect of the outside community than some of the early members wanted and focus on those. I agree that with Mike that rLab is becoming more inward looking and exclusive, but this is clearly still meeting a growing demand. The reducing diversity is likely a consequence of limited resources and space. For rLab to be able to serve a part of the demand for makers and hobbyists in Reading is a massive contribution, but please respect that it only meets a small part of the potential and do not impede those with greater objectives. I think you must determine whether the greater activity is intensity or diversity.

Maybe you are deaf to the "Alpha Member" tone of many of the posts on this and other recent topics, but I urge you to make a more broad-minded analysis on this too.

Those rLab members who have continued to maintain links to with the outside community must now feel disenfranchised and distrusted, maybe that is intentional, but how would you propose to replace this or retreat from external community activities for rLab?

How do you see the opportunities for multiple Hackspaces in Reading based on different social models?

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Gavin
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 10:59 PM
To: reading-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Mike. I absolutely dispute your suggestion that rLab is inward looking and exclusive. My perception is that there are more people actively involved in running and making the organisation a success than at any point previously during the four years that I have been a member. The membership is also larger and more diverse than ever before, with more things being produced, and more training and workshops being provided on a broader range of topics.

It is clear that you are disappointed that you have been unable to secure a consensus in support of the bid. I understand and respect that. However I do not think that should reflect badly on rLab at all. Members have engaged politely and positively, and made suggestions on how it could be improved despite being provided with limited information and very little time to respond.

Nor is it the case that one group of members is more important than another It is just that to make such a significant and potentially far-reaching commitment, a consensus was required. For one group to push ahead with the idea in the name of the hackspace without that broader consensus would have been exclusive.

Gavin

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 22:19, mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve, there was no intention to mislead and your suggestion otherwise is bad, I was responding after talking to Tony as the only director to respond to the letter I had sent the week previous while abroad. He initially said I could post in the form I did. It seems rLab is being run by a small group and not the directors as such. You are all great active members, but I don't see how you can represent all the members any more than us four who support the outreach to a wider community in Reading.. Being more familiar with such bids they know that actively NOT supporting is different from supporting a subset of members ambitions to be open and flexible.
>
> The  other organisations were able to respond in a positive manner, so this is not just a loss for the bid team, but reflects badly on rLab which has in the past been promoting open involvement in the community. I had missed that we are now to be inward looking and exclusive. If this is not the case then maybe a meeting of the membership should be arranged to address what the message should be.
>
> It does make me think that there is a need for an open hackspace if rLab is to not to be the one
>
> Nite -Mike
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

[Norro]

PS his very bitter comments to this thread afterwards probably didn't help at all with people's opinion of his actions and no doubt cost him the benefit of the doubt next time round.

[Luke Barnard]

Stuart, I agree with your statment that "If you wanted to do a project and it was bigger than just you, you would need to gather like minded individuals and do it. There should not be anyone to approve your project. There are limitations to this, where the project impacts what others want to do.". To my mind this is how things should be, and is, broadly speaking, how things are. However, just because you do not need approval or support for a project, does not mean you can assume it exists.

And this was my main issue with this proposal: that, as initially worded, it implied wider support for this project within the membership than could be demonstarted to exist. I certainly don't think you need (or should need) the memberships permission to instigate a project, but you cannot also assume and/or imply it exists for your own purposes (no matter how noble they are). Surely, for members to have a right to initiate any partiular project, other members must have an equal right to not support it? This would be completely consistent with your longing for an anarchic structure at RLab.

Therefore, given my interpretation that, as worded, the proposal tried to leverage the reputation and membership of RLab to support a project for which only limited support could be demonstarted, I considered this to be unfair. Additionaly although it is possible this project could have a very positive impact on not only our local community, but also RLab and it's members, I felt little had been done to consider what, if any, the negative impacts may be for RLab and the membership. Surely it is only responsible to consider and discuss such potential negatives? This is another reason why I think the initial wording of the LoS was unfair.

[Richard Ibbotson]

Personal opinion, assumptions and threats? Not very rLab Ben!

 

I think you must accept that your model of the governance of RLab is not the same as many others. While Stuart talks of an Anarchistic structure, you talk of “one rogue member”. Maybe Basingstoke has a different governance model, more commercial or democratic?  Maybe you would like to share?

[Stuart Ward]

On 16/04/18 18:15, Norro wrote:
> I don't think that is reasonable.  No one was saying you can't do the
> thing,

Yes they were, to the point of saying that rlab does not support the
project. To my mind it was just a few shouty people that were objecting.

> just that you can't speak for everyone else when you haven't made the
> effort to get people on board.  The idea that you should get backing
> without having to give even the base info to tell that it is
> legitimate is absurd.

You cant just sit on the sidelines and expect to be spoon fed the
background on this project. it was involved, and we had a tight timeline
to respond. We were only ever saying that the undersigned members
supported the project.

> Plus Mike brought a backlash on himself by deliberately going against
> people's wishes instead of making any attempt to convince anyone, no
> one else is responsible for the consequence of his choice to do that.

Exactly my point. If we as a group want to move forward with something
we can, we don't need the permission of Rlab to do that. Yes
constructive criticism is welcomed and helpful, but I diden't see much
of that.

Stuart

[Richard Ibbotson]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by reputation? And how this was being leveraged in this case?

 

Mike and others involved in the proposal have worked diligently to build a reputation for rLab in the local community and were always willing to attribute their personal efforts to rLab. The damage on this proposal to my mind was the refusal of the directors to trust these members and to help to resolve and develop the initial request. While I know the Directors should not control this, they have brought this upon themselves by not implementing any of the organisational proposals they made a year ago when gaining election. Their decision to throw Mike to the wolves seems again not very rLab.

 

I have been told that the content of Mike’s letter was shared and discussed by the directors with the key objectors to the proposal before it was shared by Mike with the general rLab members. Could this be confirmed or denied?

 

 

 

From: 'Luke Barnard' via Reading Hackspace <reading-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 6:36 PM
To: Reading Hackspace <reading-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

 

Stuart, I agree with your statment that "If you wanted to do a project and it was bigger than just you, you would need to gather like minded individuals and do it. There should not be anyone to approve your project. There are limitations to this, where the project impacts what others want to do.". To my mind this is how things should be, and is, broadly speaking, how things are. However, just because you do not need approval or support for a project, does not mean you can assume it exists.

And this was my main issue with this proposal: that, as initially worded, it implied wider support for this project within the membership than could be demonstarted to exist. I certainly don't think you need (or should need) the memberships permission to instigate a project, but you cannot also assume and/or imply it exists for your own purposes (no matter how noble they are). Surely, for members to have a right to initiate any partiular project, other members must have an equal right to not support it? This would be completely consistent with your longing for an anarchic structure at RLab.

Therefore, given my interpretation that, as worded, the proposal tried to leverage the reputation and membership of RLab to support a project for which only limited support could be demonstarted, I considered this to be unfair. Additionaly although it is possible this project could have a very positive impact on not only our local community, but also RLab and it's members, I felt little had been done to consider what, if any, the negative impacts may be for RLab and the membership. Surely it is only responsible to consider and discuss such potential negatives? This is another reason why I think the initial wording of the LoS was unfair.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Reading Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reading-hacksp...@googlegroups.com.

[Norro]

Mike is the one making threats of replacing rlab with something else!

How can you not classify as rogue, anyone saying they have the backing of rlab when they have in fact raised more objectors than backers!

[Norro]

Because Mike forced their hand on that.  You can't say you have the backing of rlab when you haven't gained the backing of even 5% of the membership, nor the leaders, nor several of the regulars.  The appropriate thing then is to convince people, not to misrepresent the group.

I can just sit on the sideline and be spoonfed, if you want my backing, you need to sell it to me, not just lie about having my backing.

You don't need permission to support whatever you like, but if you want to say you have the backing of everyone else then it is down to you to get it first.

[Norro]

Well what actually is the state of the bid now?  Before you carry on complaining about how bad the directors are for saying the notice was too short, did you even have time to put forward a sensible proposal?  Because to me that seems a reasonable object from them.  Was it realistic in the first place?

[Richard Ibbotson]

I think you are missing the point about anarchies, maybe Google it?

Maybe Google “paranoia” while there. 

Mike’s intent is to fill the void of the outside community demands vs the current limited ability of rLab to deliver. Nobody wants to damage the services that rLab delivers, just expect a more intelligent dialogue on broader opportunities. Growing specialisation and protectionism by rLab is sort of expected, but a less confrontational dialog would be better I think.

Sent via Richard's Phone

[Norro]

Well as I said the problem was that Mike didn't approach it that way.  People asked for more info, to talk about reasonable concerns, these we all swept away and the letter weaseled around Tony's request not to make claims of the group without some consensus. And you keep avoiding the issue that almost everyone who engaged on this did have some qualms.

If you look at the track record of grant funded spaces, the failure rate is very high.  They almost always burn through the grant then go bust when it stops. They very rarely reach sustainability so that is a big question and not something you should take for granted about rlab. Who is leading this bid, what is their track record? All this matters. From rlab as an example and research for Basingstoke I don't think that €400k to sustainability in 3 years is very realistic.

As Stuart says, it might not be a zero sum game, but it could be detrimental and what if they both go bust and Reading is left with neither?  'Don't put all your eggs in one basket' is a saying for a reason.

[mikethebee]

I appreciated Tony's normal bon amie today, distinct as it was. The bid is over and it was my mistake to think my hackspace could move fast in a positive way, for which I apologise. Fortunately RDG has a vibrant maker community that appreciated the opportunity and were agile. rLab is a great workshop and I am pleased it can thrive on it's own as I need access to such tools. I am still proud of the those that have supported my efforts to retain the spirit of Woodley, but things seemed to have moved on and I hadn't realised how. A proper vote might define the true view of the full Membership on such matters, but I don't anticipate one being possible.

-"still optimistic after all these years", Mike

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Still_Crazy_After_All_These_Years_single_cover.jpeg

 

[Norro]

Another derogatory remark at the leadership of rlab instead of taking any responsibility in failing to produce any of the info you promised earlier in the thread...

[mikethebee]

Ben, I just said again, the bid is submitted. If you read the posts I made and follow the links to the EU, Fab City, START and SAMSARA, the points you raise are answered. The funds are limited and may not be much to rLab or Basingstoke, but are significant for RBK, RC and others, we believe much can be achieved with them and make a sustainable ecosystem to support RDG arts and makers. We only wanted rLab to support an ambition, no financial commitment, no promises, but it had to be positive. Any funds secured via this bid will not be available until 2019, but RDG is becoming a SmartCity this year and I am pleased to be part of it, I had hoped to bring rLab along too.

-Mike

[Gavin]

To be fair to Ben, you did just say it was ‘over’.

---

From: reading-...@googlegroups.com <reading-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of mikethebee <miketh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:46:39 PM
To: Reading Hackspace

Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

Ben, I just said again, the bid is submitted. If you read the posts I made and follow the links to the EU, Fab City, START and SAMSARA, the points you raise are answered. The funds are limited and may not be much to rLab or Basingstoke, but are significant for RBK, RC and others, we believe much can be achieved with them and make a sustainable ecosystem to support RDG arts and makers. We only wanted rLab to support an ambition, no financial commitment, no promises, but it had to be positive. Any funds secured via this bid will not be available until 2019, but RDG is becoming a SmartCity this year and I am pleased to be part of it, I had hoped to bring rLab along too.

-Mike

[Richard Ibbotson]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Is this some computer game playing protocol?
What is over? Was this like a free kick for Ben?

[Hugo Mills]

I think it bears a closer resemblance to Mornington Crescent.

Hugo.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:56:37PM -0700, 'Richard Ibbotson' via Reading Hackspace wrote:
> I don’t understand what you are saying. Is this some computer game playing protocol?
> What is over? Was this like a free kick for Ben?
>

--
Hugo Mills | You shouldn't anthropomorphise computers. They
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | really don't like that.
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 |

[Gavin]

Mornington Crescent

[Hugo Mills]

That's Numberwang!

[David Price]

don't mention that bloody game, I used to commute home via the Northern Line (Moorgate to Tooting Bec) and we were always having to scrape defeated amateurs off the floor, muttering about some Derbyshire huffing rule or Carski's lateral protocol.

[Alex Gibson]

Trumpington's Variations or Tudor Court Rules?

 

Either way, I just lost The Game, and now, so did you.

 

 

Alex Gibson

 

+44 7813 810 765    @alexgibson3d    37 Royal Avenue, Reading RG31 4UR

 

admg consulting

 

edumaker limited

 

·         Project management

·         Operations & Process improvement

·         3D Printing

 

From: 'David Price' via Reading Hackspace [mailto:reading-...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: 17 April 2018 13:53
To: Reading Hackspace
Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)

 

don't mention that bloody game, I used to commute home via the Northern Line (Moorgate to Tooting Bec) and we were always having to scrape defeated amateurs off the floor, muttering about some Derbyshire huffing rule or Carski's lateral protocol.

--

[Keegan Neave]

https://xkcd.com/391/

[Hugo Mills]

You rarely actually lose it. It just rolls under the fridge, or
sometimes it can be found down the back of the sofa.

Hugo.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:04:42PM +0100, Alex Gibson wrote:
> Trumpington's Variations or Tudor Court Rules?
>
>
>
> Either way, I just lost The Game, and now, so did you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Alex Gibson
>
>
>
> +44 7813 810 765 @alexgibson3d 37 Royal Avenue, Reading RG31 4UR
>
>
>
> admg consulting
>
>
>
> edumaker limited
>
>
>
> · Project management
>
> · Operations & Process improvement
>
> · 3D Printing
>
>
>
> From: 'David Price' via Reading Hackspace [mailto:reading-...@googlegroups.com]
> Sent: 17 April 2018 13:53
> To: Reading Hackspace
> Subject: Re: [RDG-Hack] Reading UMH (not HUMPH I hope:)
>
>
>
> don't mention that bloody game, I used to commute home via the Northern Line (Moorgate to Tooting Bec) and we were always having to scrape defeated amateurs off the floor, muttering about some Derbyshire huffing rule or Carski's lateral protocol.
>
> On Monday, 16 April 2018 23:04:48 UTC+1, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> I think it bears a closer resemblance to Mornington Crescent.
>
> Hugo.
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:56:37PM -0700, 'Richard Ibbotson' via Reading Hackspace wrote:
> > I don’t understand what you are saying. Is this some computer game playing protocol?
> > What is over? Was this like a free kick for Ben?
> >
>

--

Hugo Mills | That's not rain, that's a lake with slots in it.
hugo@... carfax.org.uk |
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 |