HSG Events Policy - We need you!

[Juanita]

Here is a link to our events policy drafted a year ago, after quite a few plenum discussions. 

http://hackerspacesg.pbworks.com/w/page/44367892/Arranging-Events

Some questions have been raised in recent weeks by members and non-members alike which indicate we may need to go back and take a look at what we want to support in HSG and which mechanisms we use to encourage it. What are your thoughts around these questions? 

1. Illegal needs to be specified more clearly?

2. Should we allow religious events? Seems no from previous discussions?

3. What events would you consider unconscionable? The term was raised at a plenum a while back but description is a bit of a blank at the moment.

4. Should we allow sales related talks? e.g. tupperware sales, Multi-Level Marketing, recruitment of clients? (note this is very different from members taking a meeting in the space)

5. Should events be posted on the mailing list for members to voice objections in an open forum? If yes, how do we decide if objections are raised? At plenum, discretion of events ninja, more than 5 members object??

6. Should HSG endorse events? Should HSG require any events to make it clear that HSG does not endorse events?

[Kai Hendry]

Hey Juanita,

On 10 November 2012 12:21, Juanita <juanita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Illegal needs to be specified more clearly?

I don't see "illegal" upon
http://hackerspacesg.pbworks.com/w/page/44367892/Arranging-Events

I see ' "Hacking" meaning ingenuity or playful cleverness, not
criminal activity.' and that goes without saying imo. Or at least it
doesn't need to be on the events page surely... ? Oh, I also see
"within the law". Goes without saying... doesn't it?

> 5. Should events be posted on the mailing list for members to voice
> objections in an open forum? If yes, how do we decide if objections are
> raised? At plenum, discretion of events ninja, more than 5 members object??

Ultimately the "events ninja" / programme co-ordinator (whose name
should be clearly advertised) should make the call. If that person
makes bad calls then that person should be switched at some committee
meeting. Discussing every event on the list and getting criticism (or
objections) should be "de riguer". The "events ninja" need to soak it
up and make decisions.

> 6. Should HSG endorse events? Should HSG require any events to make it clear
> that HSG does not endorse events?

Why does it need to be said either way?

Sorry I have my "less is more" hat on this morning. This document is
of genuine interest to me since I'm thinking of organising a
http://hackandtell.org/ event. Could you please present one of your
accounting hacks in 5 minutes? ;)

Best wishes,

[ChrisChong]

Hi Kai

I think there is a very fine line between illegal and 'ingenuity/playful cleverness', since much of the area is grey and hasn't really been defined as illegal or not. Just like how we tend to toe the line in many instances of our own accord. Again, it is up to our own moral standard and ethics in what we choose to do with our own lives/profession, but what I think we're trying to bring up here is how close to the line should we allow when events are being hosted at Hackerspace. 

Which leads to the endorsement of events. Events held at Hackerspace basically carry the brand name of Hackerspace. The moment we put it on our Hackerspace calendar, we're saying that this event is (to a certain extent) hosted by us, as a whole. For example, if someone were to ask "where did you learn that from?", the person is likely to reply "oh, there was this course held at Hackerspace, by so and so person...". So Hackerspace becomes pretty much a form of endorsement for events that are being carried out at the space, and since this potentially would be the first point of contact that a person would make with Hackerspace, we should be careful with what we represent or are associated with with regards to events. 

I don't think the heavy responsibility of choosing yes/no should lie with the events ninja alone, because that would be very much be left to a biased 'dictatorship' of what the events ninja eventually decides. Since Hackerspace is a community space, I would agree with a consensus for consistency. To give a very simple example - if I wanted to bring in a cat into the space and just one person were to object to it, be it for personal reasons or just a pure dislike for cats, I simply wouldn't bring the cat in. Events, of course, are far more complicated, so I would agree with a 5 person veto thing. Of course, it would require 5 people who feel strongly enough to oppose the event to actually come down to the plenum to make a stand, which really isn't a small commitment. The person hosting the event also has before and during the plenum to convince the rest of the members to allow the event, so I really do think that it's fair.

The type of events are also important, I guess, but again that could be opposed through a 5 person veto as above. Or we could simply restrict the topics, though that could possibly reduce the amount of knowledge that we could share as a community space.

Cheers

Chris

[Kai Hendry]

"Dictatorships" are known to work. But that's not what I was
suggesting. I was suggesting that ultimately one person is responsible
for making decisions and that means the right care and credit is
associated goes with the job.

The "5 person veto thing" you agree to for your "cat example" sounds
like a fantastic recipe for disaster. Can you imagine the endless cat
thread between cat lovers and haters? Unless I mis-understood you
Chris! ;)

I don't like the 5 person veto since it reduces this to mob rule and
creates a fair bit of bureaucracy.

You can't easily argue with 5 crazy people. ;)

[ChrisChong]

Hi Kai

Yes, I think you misunderstood, quite terribly actually. 

The 'cat example' was a basic example to say that this is a community space - As long as one person isn't comfortable with something brought into the space, the matter should be carefully considered, and rejected if no negative repercussions are suffered. After all, there are plenty of venues available to hold events which might be far more appropriate than Hackerspace. We have quite a fair bit of collective intelligence in this space (unless you're denying to be one of them), and I honestly doubt that we would have 5 crazies going on about something that didn't have a certain amount of truth to the matter :P

Cheers

Chris

[Kai Hendry]

Lets chat about this Chris some time in the Hackerspace? I found an
interesting topic.

I must say https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/4MrPNJzE8vV
influenced me of late. Of course, we are not a standards body. ;)

Best wishes,

[Roland Turner]

Apologies, I missed this thread earlier:

 

1. Illegal needs to be specified more clearly?

Setting aside that this word is not used (perhaps "criminal" or "within the law" is what raised the question?), it is way out of scope for Hackerspace.SG to define what is and isn't legal, and would be absurd to attempt to. This is the job of the legal system.

It may be important to note that the policy is, ultimately, a policy of the directors and that, therefore, it is ultimately for the directors to determine whether a proposed event is outside the law in their opinion.

2. Should we allow religious events? Seems no from previous discussions?

So long as they don't breach Singapore law, they absolutely should be permitted. The fiasco around the prejudicial handling of the proposed Inter-Faith Dialogue event is what gave rise to the original discussion on this and is something that we should work hard to avoid a repeat of.
 

3. What events would you consider unconscionable? The term was raised at a plenum a while back but description is a bit of a blank at the moment.

It's worth having member input on this ("What would be lawful, but so distressing that it should be banned up front rather than handled in plenum?"). The reason for proposing this limitation (not yet documented) was that we might encounter things that were perfectly legal but that were [likely to be] extremely objectionable to [almost] the entire membership. I don't recall any concrete examples being offered, but it seems sensible for a safety valve to exist. This should only ever be used in plenum (i.e. the Event Co-ordinator should have a "yikes! this needs discussion" option available).

4. Should we allow sales related talks? e.g. tupperware sales, Multi-Level Marketing, recruitment of clients? (note this is very different from members taking a meeting in the space)

I'd suggest that it's not reasonable to exclude an entire class of events (apart from those already excluded: illegal, unsafe, unworkable resourcing requirements). If there's an realistic uncertainty about the legality, resource availability, conscionability or safety of a proposed event then the Event Co-ordinator should be punting to plenum. If we end up refusing multiple instances of a class of event in plenum, then we should consider documenting a class prohibition.

We have refused zero instances in plenum so far, and at least two through procedural stuff-ups outside plenum.
 

5. Should events be posted on the mailing list for members to voice objections in an open forum? If yes, how do we decide if objections are raised? At plenum, discretion of events ninja, more than 5 members object??

No, categorically not.

(Note that the question I'm asking is about whether all events should be subject to this. Things which the Event Co-ordinator feels have realistic issues to resolve around the 4 bases for rejection should of course be referred to plenum.)
 
From the outset, we've rejected the idea that members should have veto over others' activities in the space, minus the most unavoidable of constraints (law, safety, resource availability, unconscionability (determined in plenum, if an example ever actually arose; none ever has)). To the maximum extent possible, each member should be able to determine directly from the documented policy whether an event is permissible. The unconscionability criterion remains as a hopefully-never-used-ever option for referring to plenum if the Event Co-ordinator feels that the proposed event is too close to the edge, not a general "someone might not like that" category.

This is a hackerspace, not a country club; diversity and "close to the edge" activities are the purpose of the organisation. "Singapore's first kiasu-free zone", no?

6. Should HSG endorse events? Should HSG require any events to make it clear that HSG does not endorse events?

No and yes, respectively. Except where an event is arranged as a HSG event, all events (and everything else that happens in the space) are activities by HSG members, not by HSG.

- Raz

[Roland Turner]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Kai Hendry <hen...@webconverger.com> wrote:

> 5. Should events be posted on the mailing list for members to voice

> objections in an open forum? If yes, how do we decide if objections are
> raised? At plenum, discretion of events ninja, more than 5 members object??

Ultimately the "events ninja" / programme co-ordinator (whose name
should be clearly advertised) should make the call. If that person
makes bad calls then that person should be switched at some committee
meeting.

+1
 

 Discussing every event on the list and getting criticism (or
objections) should be "de riguer". The "events ninja" need to soak it
up and make decisions.

I'd suggest that this is a very, very bad idea. As we saw with IFD, this promotes some amazingly bad, and rather narrow-minded thinking.

The class of prohibited events should be as small as possible (illegal, unsafe, can't be resourced, [unconscionable if the plenum thinks it's unconscionable]). When something comes up that the Events Co-ordinator feels is too close to the line then it should be referred to the plenum. As such items will pretty much by definition be contentious, they should not be discussed on the list. Synchronous face-to-face discussion is the appropriate tool for issues of this sort.

> 6. Should HSG endorse events? Should HSG require any events to make it clear
> that HSG does not endorse events?

Why does it need to be said either way?

Because this informs the argument about whether the Events Co-ordinator should be applying quality controls outside of illegal/unsafe/unresourcable:

• If HSG endorses members' events, then HSG should be making content decisions about those events.
• If HSG does not endorse events, then members are free to hold any legal, safe event that doesn't create a resourcing issue.

Only the latter is consistent with the spirit in which HSG intends to operate.

- Raz

[Roland Turner]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM, ChrisChong <chris.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:

what I think we're trying to bring up here is how close to the line should we allow when events are being hosted at Hackerspace. 

Sure. I'd suggest we're also trying to sort out what procedural approach to use. The primary options appear to be:

• Refer edge-cases to plenum.
• Write a list of things-people-might-not-like and then advocate for them to be banned as a class (rather than dealing with case by case, and documenting banned classes if they repeatedly arise).

The intention from the outset (and later that the list not be used, after the IFD fiasco) has been that we deal on a case-by-case basis when/if someone comes up with something too close to the edge.
 

Which leads to the endorsement of events. Events held at Hackerspace basically carry the brand name of Hackerspace. The moment we put it on our Hackerspace calendar, we're saying that this event is (to a certain extent) hosted by us, as a whole.

This is absolutely not correct. Apart from events arranged by HSG as an organisation, all activities in the space are the activities of HSG members, not of HSG. This is an essential element of a "kiasu-free zone".
 

For example, if someone were to ask "where did you learn that from?", the person is likely to reply "oh, there was this course held at Hackerspace, by so and so person...". So Hackerspace becomes pretty much a form of endorsement for events that are being carried out at the space, and since this potentially would be the first point of contact that a person would make with Hackerspace, we should be careful with what we represent or are associated with with regards to events.

As was pointed out at the last plenum, it's called Hackerspace not technological-place-at-which-we-avoid-all-controversy. This is not a place to be terribly fearful about reputation.

I don't think the heavy responsibility of choosing yes/no should lie with the events ninja alone, because that would be very much be left to a biased 'dictatorship' of what the events ninja eventually decides.

Right. The Ninja is supposed to be scheduling all events proposed by members subject to legality, safety and resource availability (and we want to have the latter problem!).
 

Since Hackerspace is a community space, I would agree with a consensus for consistency.

This is the kiasu approach, and not what HSG is about. Individuals members should have a broad a freedom to use the space as we can cope with.
 

To give a very simple example - if I wanted to bring in a cat into the space and just one person were to object to it, be it for personal reasons or just a pure dislike for cats, I simply wouldn't bring the cat in.

That is a choice that you are of course free to make, but that other members should not be able to compel you to make.

(Note that, with cats in particular, there are a bunch of other issues that may need addressing:

• Have we agreed with our landlord not to bring animals into the space?
• Does the risk of provoking members'/guests' allergies rise to the level of a safety concern?
• Aside from the allergy concern: cleaning up after longhairs is difficult; any member wanting to bring a longhair into the space might reasonably be asked to explain first how they intend to deal with cleaning.
  

)
 

Events, of course, are far more complicated, so I would agree with a 5 person veto thing.

I would not. It may be that we have 5 people who share a prejudice, in which case the appropriate approach would be:

• Refer to plenum
• Determine whether there is in fact some argument so strong that their discomfort is reason for another member's activities to be curtailed.

In any event, contentious issues of this type should not be resolved on list; if the Event Co-ordinator sees a problem then a referral to plenum is appropriate. At worst, if problematic events are regularly approved then a change in the EC's approach or appointment might be appropriate, but this seems rather unlikely.

More importantly, it's not necessary to sort out such criteria up front, therefore we should not.

we could simply restrict the topics, though that could possibly reduce the amount of knowledge that we could share as a community space.

There's another, bigger issue of this type.

It is desirable that as wide a range of things as possible happen in the space, and in particular of things that are "close to the edge", specifically because this helps foster the less-fearful behaviour that HSG was founded to encourage. (Also relevant is broadening contact between people with different outlooks.)

So long as there's a longer-than-necessary list of banned things - or worse: a procedure whereby individual member's activities are subject to interference/veto by others - the attraction of risk-avoiding, small-minded decision making is likely to be inescapable.

- Raz

[Meng Weng Wong]

On 17 Dec, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Roland Turner <r...@raz.cx> wrote:

Right. The Ninja is supposed to be scheduling all events proposed by members subject to legality, safety and resource availability (and we want to have the latter problem!).
 

Since Hackerspace is a community space, I would agree with a consensus for consistency.

This is the kiasu approach, and not what HSG is about. Individuals members should have a broad a freedom to use the space as we can cope with.
 

for perspective, since we've got a Ninja, I hope nobody will object if I add a Monk to the mix.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/01/buddhist-monk-vs-hackerspace.html

https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-July/024213.html

[Roland Turner]

We've yet to have to deal with quite so disruptive individual as Noisebridge's Lama[1] and consequently lack the resulting entertainment in our mailing list archive. I'd suggest that:

• The problem that Noisebridge was having wasn't so much that what he was doing was explicitly religious but rather that he was continually disrupting the activities of others in the space.
• The sensible approach to the potential for such a problem to arise in HSG is to deal with it in plenum when it arises, rather than to fearfully implement protections against hypothetical problems.
  

- Raz


1: It may be argued that we actually have dealt with someone comparable: some will recall an individual about 18 months ago who appeared to feel that his personal desire for cleanliness and order took precedence over all other concerns and threfore justified considerable disruption of HSG's contents.

--
--
Chat: http://hackerspace.sg/chat