How to make structural changes to our organisation?

[Martin Dittus]

As part of the ongoing "fixing the space" discussion (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and others) I started pondering how we would introduce structural changes to how the LHS is organised.

For example...
- Say we wanted to formalise how key subgroups are organised: we may ask for contact persons, a wiki page with details about the group and documentation on e.g. recent discussions/decisions, and in return would give the respective group some dedicated space and a small budget.
- Say we wanted to introduce "mediators" or "mentors"; well-respected members that are nominated by the community, that introduce new people to the space, are a first point of contact when members have questions, etc.
- Say we wanted to introduce a "plenum" (or "circle", "committee", or any other name): an elected group of members that meets regularly and publicly, and that makes judgement calls about resources, subgroups, etc; in liaison with the board (the trustees.)
- Or any other kind of change we may want to make to our structure.

I think it's time to introduce some of these middle-layer structures (somewhere between trustees and members) to allow more members to participate in decision-making, to give particular subgroups well-defined freedoms, remits, and responsibilities, and to create physical points of contact beyond the chatter on the mailing list and IRC.

However it's not quite clear to me what the best process would be to make any such change happen, and so I'd like to find a way that is straightforward, transparent, open to all members, and best represents the interests of the organisation.

Who prepares such proposals for new structures?
- Any member or group of members, in a series of discussions on the mailing list, along with a proposal on a Piratepad or wiki page that is gradually refined?
- A new group with a regular meeting slot where people come together to discuss ideas, and then prepare proposals?
- Regardless of the process -- how can we tell whether is a proposal good enough to be voted on?

How would we ratify such proposals?
- Do we test for consensus on the mailing list?
- Do we have pre-announced members-only physical meetings where proposals are voted on? (At the AGM, a dedicated meeting, or any other suitable occasion.)
- Do we let the trustees decide on proposals?
- Do we wait until we have a digital governance tool (which we've been planning to introduce, although at this point there's no clear schedule for it) and then vote on proposals online?

Thoughts?

m.

[1] State of the LHS community: subgroups as a social mechanism for resource management problems?
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/eeZILmAgNlk/discussion

[2] The State of the Space - You are not entitled to your opinion
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/mvCYtcMLiG0/discussion

[3] Using the hackspace as your office
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/ILFnGAcwXcg/discussion

[4] Members and non members?
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/HXkTaBfDvCM/discussion

[5] Have you hugged your spanner today?
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/0X841YvgMeo/discussion

[Martin Dittus]

Fwiw, I had a quick scan of our current constitution [1] (note that
Russ is currently working on a new version [2]), and it appears that
many of the changes I provided as examples below could be made without
a lot of formal ceremony or even a strict requirement for consensus/
quorum. In addition we could introduce new types of members (e.g. to
formalise a committee, or mentors, and give them particular
abilities), but any changes made to these member classes then require
a "special resolution".

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, any advice by people with more insight into such
matters is very much encouraged.

m.

[1] https://london.hackspace.org.uk/organisation/docs/articles.pdf
[2] https://groups.google.com/group/london-hack-space/browse_thread/thread/e123ef877988d658

On Nov 9, 6:12 pm, Martin Dittus <deks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As part of the ongoing "fixing the space" discussion (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and others) I started pondering how we would introduce structural changes to how the LHS is organised.
>
> For example...
> - Say we wanted to formalise how key subgroups are organised: we may ask for contact persons, a wiki page with details about the group and documentation on e.g. recent discussions/decisions, and in return would give the respective group some dedicated space and a small budget.
> - Say we wanted to introduce "mediators" or "mentors"; well-respected members that are nominated by the community, that introduce new people to the space, are a first point of contact when members have questions, etc.
> - Say we wanted to introduce a "plenum" (or "circle", "committee", or any other name): an elected group of members that meets regularly and publicly, and that makes judgement calls about resources, subgroups, etc; in liaison with the board (the trustees.)
> - Or any other kind of change we may want to make to our structure.
>
> I think it's time to introduce some of these middle-layer structures (somewhere between trustees and members) to allow more members to participate in decision-making, to give particular subgroups well-defined freedoms, remits, and responsibilities, and to create physical points of contact beyond the chatter on the mailing list and IRC.
>
> However it's not quite clear to me what the best process would be to make any such change happen, and so I'd like to find a way that is straightforward, transparent, open to all members, and best represents the interests of the organisation.
>
> Who prepares such proposals for new structures?
> - Any member or group of members, in a series of discussions on the mailing list, along with a proposal on a Piratepad or wiki page that is gradually refined?
> - A new group with a regular meeting slot where people come together to discuss ideas, and then prepare proposals?
> - Regardless of the process -- how can we tell whether is a proposal good enough to be voted on?
>
> How would we ratify such proposals?
> - Do we test for consensus on the mailing list?
> - Do we have pre-announced members-only physical meetings where proposals are voted on? (At the AGM, a dedicated meeting, or any other suitable occasion.)
> - Do we let the trustees decide on proposals?
> - Do we wait until we have a digital governance tool (which we've been planning to introduce, although at this point there's no clear schedule for it) and then vote on proposals online?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> m.
>

> [1] State of the LHS community: subgroups as a social mechanism for resource management problems?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/eeZILmAgNlk/discu...
>
> [2] The State of the Space - You are not entitled to your opinionhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/mvCYtcMLiG0/discu...
>
> [3] Using the hackspace as your officehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/ILFnGAcwXcg/discu...
>
> [4] Members and non members?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/HXkTaBfDvCM/discu...
>
> [5] Have you hugged your spanner today?https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/0X841YvgMeo/discu...

[Francis Davey]

Le vendredi 9 novembre 2012 18:32:31 UTC, Martin Dittus a écrit :

Fwiw, I had a quick scan of our current constitution [1] (note that
Russ is currently working on a new version [2]), and it appears that
many of the changes I provided as examples below could be made without
a lot of formal ceremony or even a strict requirement for consensus/
quorum. In addition we could introduce new types of members (e.g. to
formalise a committee, or mentors, and give them particular
abilities), but any changes made to these member classes then require
a "special resolution".

If I hadn't been suffering from a very long and annoying series of infections for the last 6 weeks I would be more on top of a new version. 

Its easy enough to give directors powers to delegate and form sub-committees. In fact its a good idea. If you want to hard-wire any of your governance model in the constitution that means you have to work out how it works first. Having the e-governance tool support that means you might have to be nice to developers (which isn't me - I barely speak rails)

Again, sorry for glacial progress at this end.

Francis

[Martin Dittus]

Another thought I had -- instead of "institutionalising" new organisational structures (putting specific people in particular positions) we could describe them as situational patterns. This is in the spirit of a fluid and member-driven organisation, and completely bypasses any need for "ratification."

For example: instead of "conflict mediation by trustees" we could invite all members to adopt a "conflict mediation" design pattern that allows anyone who feels suitable to adopt the position of a mediator in a particular situation.

And instead of instating a fixed "committee" we could invite members to adopt a "project group" design pattern, which describes a process by which people gather around a particular concern and work towards a particular outcome.

I.e., this would mean to change the discussion from "which new organisational layers do we need" to "which patterns of social behaviour would we like to encourage".

m.

[Russ Garrett]

On 13 November 2012 14:53, Martin Dittus <dek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thought I had -- instead of "institutionalising" new organisational structures (putting specific people in particular positions) we could describe them as situational patterns. This is in the spirit of a fluid and member-driven organisation, and completely bypasses any need for "ratification."

Sounds like you're describing this:
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/The_sudo_leadership_Pattern

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Martin Dittus]

Yes, as a general approach (which we are already following); although I think we can now also describe more specific instances for this.

Random examples of frequent LHS activities:
- someone organises a pledge drive
- someone organises an event
- someone wants to store a work-in-progress

For each of these we could describe a design pattern that broadly describes how to go about making these happen. (In several cases we already have documentation, albeit spread across the wiki.)

Other activities are currently not as well-established, and members could benefit from some guidance:
- someone wants to start a new subgroup
- someone wants to organise a cleanup session
- someone wants to mediate in a conflict between members

In almost all cases members currently have to come up with their own ways of doing these things, which may act as an impediment. If instead there's a widely accepted (and documented!) practice that is frequently refined people may be encouraged to do these things more often.

m.

[Akki]

I don't think I'm alone in saying this but...

What the hey are you on about? This is far too complex. K.I.S.S.

Hugs and ~~s,

~Akki

[Martin Dittus]

What I am on about?

This:
http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/User:Martind/Broken

:)

(From my perspective: making it easier for new members and casual members to do the right thing; finding new ways in which the community can negotiate social codes within the space without merely relying on the mailing list & IRC; and ultimately also finding new ways of bringing people together.)

m.

[Akki]

I don't think this works. Especially not in a British mentality.

Hear me out on this...

British mentality -
Apologise for anything and everything - even if it's not your fault.
Queue for everything
Don't make a fuss.

Repeatedly, we have people coming into the Space asking who's in charge. It's natural in day to day life to be able to say this. It's a highly unnatural situation (the sudo leadership mentioned before) in Hackspace and it's not strictly true because the majority of people who use the Hackspace don't want to rock the boat. 

I've found most people are seeking a leadership because they don't want to step on anyone's toes (see above points on British mentality) or get in trouble somehow for their changes to the Space. Really, almost all changes are reversible in some way. You can ameliorate just about anything after the fact... as proven by previous problems like offensive graffiti on the walls etc. It's just paint. Put up some shelves, they can be taken down or moved. If in doubt, it can be thrown out.

Otherwise, the trustee election has made me realise more strongly that we do possibly need a middle management. We're forcing 8 people to tackle the problems of over 555 members (plus other causal users of the Space) for a whole year.

They need our help. 

I think we need a support group circle - outside of the subgroups for specific things - that'll help sort out minor space problems and discussions. You might say the mailing list is already that but it'd be nicer to formalise it a little and maybe as a sort of runner-up prize for people who want to stand for Trustee, they could help out the Space in other ways. People like a few leaders to report back to and 8 trustees isn't really enough.

and i'm sure i had more of a point but my brain's just run out of power for the evening. Discuss.

~Akki

[Martin Dittus]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Much of it rings true. I'd like to offer one observation though:

On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:49, Akki wrote:
> Repeatedly, we have people coming into the Space asking who's in charge. It's natural in day to day life to be able to say this. It's a highly unnatural situation (the sudo leadership mentioned before) in Hackspace and it's not strictly true because the majority of people who use the Hackspace don't want to rock the boat.

I think one of our implicit remits as an organisation is to change people's perspective on this particular aspect of life: someone doesn't always need to be in charge; and if there needs to be a "leader" then it could be situational, short-term, as opposed to by status or job title.

It takes a while to show people what it means to be a self-governing community, and it is this particular aspect that's often hardest to grasp. People need to experience and be demonstrated over and over the implication of this seemingly simple difference; the value of realising how much you're in control yourself, and how much you can actually affect. How important it is to not first wait for someone to give you orders.

I think that's something worth preserving, even if it comes at the cost of having to "re-educate"/brainwash every single new member. The benefits are vast, and it is particularly this aspect which has allowed us to grow so quickly and in so many directions.

m.

[Jasper Wallace]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Martin Dittus wrote:

> Thanks for your thoughtful response. Much of it rings true. I'd like to offer one observation though:
>
> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:49, Akki wrote:
> > Repeatedly, we have people coming into the Space asking who's in
> > charge. It's natural in day to day life to be able to say this. It's a
> > highly unnatural situation (the sudo leadership mentioned before) in
> > Hackspace and it's not strictly true because the majority of people
> > who use the Hackspace don't want to rock the boat.
>
> I think one of our implicit remits as an organisation is to change
> people's perspective on this particular aspect of life: someone doesn't
> always need to be in charge; and if there needs to be a "leader" then it
> could be situational, short-term, as opposed to by status or job title.

While this is in nice in theory in reality traditional heriarchial
orginisations mostly successfully guard us while we sleep, kept
the lights on, made the trains run on time (kind of), and have also
demonstranted competence in art of landing people on other heavenly
bodies.

One idea is to have a hackspace internal currency - an hours worth
of working to improve the space is worth one unit, as would be ~£20 worth
of subscription. You'd need 2 units to have laser cutter training, and 2
per month to use the laser cutter (Or any other tool). Internet access is
free for the first 4 hours a month and 1 unit per 6 hours afterwards.

Exact values up for debate obviously.

There are flaws with this - it's next to impossible to accuratly police
internet usage (people can change mac addresses), but it would mean the
people who spend large amounts of time in the space have to do more to
make it work.

We also don't really have anough work, or at least enough well defined
work (tho people are welcome to run around with a vacum cleaner anytime
obviously).

I do think that something like that would be useful when we moved to a new
space to get it up and running - e.g. you have to do a minimum of 4 hours
work on the new space before you can use it.

> It takes a while to show people what it means to be a self-governing
> community, and it is this particular aspect that's often hardest to
> grasp. People need to experience and be demonstrated over and over the
> implication of this seemingly simple difference; the value of realising
> how much you're in control yourself, and how much you can actually
> affect. How important it is to not first wait for someone to give you
> orders.
>
> I think that's something worth preserving, even if it comes at the cost
> of having to "re-educate"/brainwash every single new member. The
> benefits are vast, and it is particularly this aspect which has allowed
> us to grow so quickly and in so many directions.

--
[http://pointless.net/] [0x2ECA0975]

[Martin Dittus]

On 16 Nov 2012, at 02:33, Jasper Wallace wrote:

> While this is in nice in theory in reality traditional heriarchial
> orginisations mostly successfully guard us while we sleep, kept
> the lights on, made the trains run on time (kind of), and have also
> demonstranted competence in art of landing people on other heavenly
> bodies.

Of course I partially agree with this -- I'm not proposing to enforce entirely flat structures. I'm just saying that these hierarchies don't need to be very rigid in order to function well; the "sudo leadership" pattern Russ linked to describes that nicely.

That said, as has been discussed at length in other threads I'm not opposed to setting up new structures, be it about a more formal definition of subgroups, or the introduction of other community structures.

The question for this thread is: where do we meet to have discussions about such notions? And how do we make decisions about them? As we can see there's a healthy spread in perspectives.

> I do think that something like that would be useful when we moved to a new
> space to get it up and running - e.g. you have to do a minimum of 4 hours
> work on the new space before you can use it.

It's an interesting notion: make people invest some time/effort into the organisation before they are accepted as "full" members (whatever that is.) In talking to c-base recently I found it interesting to find out that their members are on an initial probation period when they first join.

m.

[Akki]

On Friday, 16 November 2012 16:07:57 UTC, Martin Dittus wrote:

The question for this thread is: where do we meet to have discussions about such notions? And how do we make decisions about them? As we can see there's a healthy spread in perspectives.

Uh How about on the mailing list ... like we do every other decision and discussion about the Hackspace? Is that not what we're doing now? It's silly to discuss about where to discuss things to discuss about. Just ask the question in plain english, get feedback, make revisions, pose new questions, etc. It's the scientific method. I seriously worry that your way of explaining things has put off people from discussing this topic at all. We're too big of a group to meet somewhere IRL to discuss these things fully. Mailing list is the best way. Ask the question, don't ask to ask questions.
 

> I do think that something like that would be useful when we moved to a new
> space to get it up and running - e.g. you have to do a minimum of 4 hours
> work on the new space before you can use it.

It's an interesting notion: make people invest some time/effort into the organisation before they are accepted as "full" members (whatever that is.) In talking to c-base recently I found it interesting to find out that their members are on an initial probation period when they first join.

I like this idea too. Trial membership. Also it would be helpful to have it be more based on joining, based on knowing someone, like a reference system maybe? This would mean we'd have more people who actively seek out conversations (like on the mailing list or on IRC) and interact with other users in that way and less people turning up to work alone at a desk with headphones on, ignoring everyone.
Heck, it might be interesting to just have it as another field when you sign up "Where did you hear about us?" sort of thing to collate a little data. 

~Akki

[Adrian Godwin]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Akki <beloved...@gmail.com> wrote:

Uh How about on the mailing list ... like we do every other decision and discussion about the Hackspace? Is that not what we're doing now? It's silly to discuss about where to discuss things to discuss about. Just ask the question in plain english, get feedback, make revisions, pose new questions, etc. It's the scientific method. I seriously worry that your way of explaining things has put off people from discussing this topic at all. We're too big of a group to meet somewhere IRL to discuss these things fully. Mailing list is the best way. Ask the question, don't ask to ask questions.

It's true that the mailing list is supposed to be where we discuss this sort of thing, and that it's more practical than IRL.

But it's not really working.  A typical thread has only a tiny number of contributors and there's often no clear outcome - the thread dies more because it's not going anywhere than because it is resolved, and it isn't clear whether the silent majority are agreeing or ignoring.

If we had real life meetings with that level of involvement, we wouldn't consider them successful - but at least we'd be able to gauge interest from numbers and result from body language.

This doesn't mean the mailing list is the wrong approach, and that meetings are the right one. But we haven't really tried the meeting approach, and we do need greater involvement and commitment than we currently have, IMO.

-adrian