Re: [sudo-discuss] jake's idea for sudoroom membership structure

has some very specific language that needs to be in the bylaws (or sent annually to all the members) on the procedure to be followed for expelling a member "in a fair and reasonable manner". One of the few cases where there is actually a legal requirement for how a nonprofit should run its business: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/**cacode/CORP/1/1/d2/2/3/4/s5341<http://code… The procedure is fairly involved and it can take weeks before someone you want out has been officially terminated. So you may want to make sure that you can also bar someone access to the space while their case is being reviewed. Patrik On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jake &lt;jake(a)spaz.org&gt; wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I hope that others will step up to answer these questions as to what they believe would be right for sudoroom. My personal answer is: the membership decides. Whether we decide things based on consensus (problematic because it doesn't define whether consensus is required to do something or to prevent it), or some form of voting, is a larger discussion where we need to brainstorm the advantages and disadvantages of the different styles. For example, if we do voting, will we try to do ranked choice? Should we have different voting percentages for different issues? What happens when the group is cleanly split along a percentage line, is there a tiebreaker? I agree that there are a lot of decisions to be made, sort of like trying to compile your own kernel, and being asked a million questions. But at the same time, even copying a popular bylaws structure from a template or existing organization would be a great improvement from what we have right now. I claim that what sudoroom has right now is a moment of good weather and luck, and an opportunity to create a structure that will last a long time. - -jake On Sat, 14 Sep 2013, Eddan Katz wrote: Jake. Thanks. As always, this is really helpful. I was hoping though if you could elaborate on (1) who decides; (2) in what circumstance; (3) by which process. I think that too often people ignore the (1) who decides - part of the equation; and in regards to diversity, inclusion, and openness - I think it's a key factor. Janelle Orsi of SELC used the phrase "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" in her workshop the other day. This notion strikes an important chord to think about as we continue to evolve. sent from eddan.com On Sep 14, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Jake &lt;jake(a)spaz.org&gt; wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 i confess i have no idea how to properly edit the membership wiki to add my ideas. So i will just type them here, and maybe someone can help me put them into the wiki properly. Sudo room/membership Do we have it? I think sudoroom does not currently have a membership structure in place. We are currently existing in a (most of the time) benevolent anarchy, resulting from equal parts luck, hard work by caring people, and security by obscurity. I think we SHOULD have membership, which is clearly defined and binary (either you are a member in good standing, or a nonmember for whatever reason). There should be a list of members which can be publicly accessed, with enough information about each member that they can be identified by any member (a description or picture provided by the member themselves) since we don't all "know" each other. I think membership should be something that is in exchange for ONGOING contribution to the community, as defined (continually) by the membership, on a person by person basis. For example, $10 per month might be accepted by one person as sufficient, but another person might be required to pay $40 per month. Or the group can decide that a persons offer to "clear and sweep the floor once a week" is sufficient. Also the community should be able to refuse someone's membership, even if they are a current member who has been making their required contribution. Also the community should be able to change the requirement from a person based on information from them or anyone, to a higher or lower or different requirement. The community should be able to declare that a person has not fulfilled their requirement and is, until they return to that requirement, temporarily not a member. Does it [membership] confer special privelages? I think that membership should confer special privelages including access to the space even if it is closed, for any community-approved uses. A member can be there when no one else is there if they want to be. Also while anyone can participate in discussions at meetings, only members can vote (or block consensus items). I think a member should be able to "sponsor" a nonmember (or multiple of them) WHILE they are present in the space. This way nonmembers can use the space any time a member who supports them is present, which should be easy for nonmembers who use the space properly in a cooperative way. And for all nonmembers wanting to use the space, their sponsor can help them use the space properly. I think that nonmembers should be nominally granted up to 24 added-up hours of access to the space without a specific sponsor. This part is subtle and I urge people to think about the total effect of this "pseudo policy" before objecting. If a nonmember behaves badly before they have used up 24 hours they can be asked to leave by a member, of course. And if a nonmember behaves well it is likely that no one will even point out when their "24 hours" appears to have expired. are there expectations of members, do they have responsibilities? I think that all members should promise not to leave the space open without a member present. This means that when an awesome nonmember is working on a project and you're the last member and you want to leave, you have to decide between staying to help them or asking them to return when the space is open. It is also a good time to remind them that by contributing in a community-approved way, they can have 24-7 access. One reason for members making this promise to each other is because members have accountability to one another, and were approved at a meeting, and can be contacted with questions by other members, and can be trusted. However that trust does not extend to strangers and we must respect the process of meetings and accountability when we are not present to act as an advocate or translator for a nonmember we want to support. Some practical reasons for not allowing nonmembers in the space alone include security of property and materials, projects and tools. But also, the organization of the space and functionality of it is tied to human effort to make it a usable space. People who are members are contributors to the space in one way or another, and they contribute toward the usability of the space. It isn't fair to our fellow contributors to allow others to use and take from that space when we ourselves are not willing to supervise our own guests' use of the space. How do you become a member? People who want to become a member of the space must meet members of the space and learn about membership and the space. They need to announce to the membership, through the discuss list, that they want to become a member and answer responses to their post so that members who might come to a meeting will be satisfied with their reasons for wanting to join. Also, use of the mailinglist demonstrates a basic ability to communicate and be accountable to other members in case they are accepted. After making their desires known, they will come to meetings to get to know people, and announce that they would like to become a member. They can discuss with the group what kind of contribution they feel comfortable making, based on their income or free time levels, and in the case of nonmonetary contributions, how they propose their contributions be tracked (could be an email declaring that they cleaned the space at 3PM today and saw certain members there who saw it happen) I think that we should not do like noisebridge and expect a secret discussion, or expect a specific timeline for consideration of membership. If a person makes their bid for membership on the list and shows up to the nearest meeting after that, they should not expect to achieve membership for at least another week while the possiblity for objections is there. At their first meeting the announcement having been made, one week should be sufficient time for the membership to bring out any uncertainties. If a person is a member of the space, they should not have any less accountability to the space than a nonmember (on the contrary). This means that a member can be discussed at a meeting for questionable behavior and if necessary, have their membership revoked by the group. Consensus Minus One would be nice for this purpose but is too limiting in practice, because we hackers tend to be contrary and side with the underdog to a fault. If a large portion of the membership agrees that a person is not a good fit for the space, the minority should not ask them to put aside their discomfort without convincing them of the reasons in dialogue. Why is this necessary? As I said in the beginning, i feel that sudoroom is riding on a streak of luck and hard work at the moment, and that we can't expect this to continue in the face of entropy. We already have and will continue to see abuse of the space by people who have no feelings of accountability, and our members have no recourse or policy to address anything like that. I know from experience what results from this, and it is sad. The failure of Sudoroom would not be a sufficiently educational experience to justify allowing it to happen, when the lessons we would learn have been offered so many times in other places. We talk about the challenge of diversity in a hackerspace like ours. One thing we don't seek is diversity of people who are good and bad for what we're trying to do. We do not invite drug dealers to sudoroom to sell meth to people from the street outside, even though it would please them greatly if they could use our space. We don't invite meth addicts to browse our hacking materials shelves to find copper and aluminum to recycle so they can buy more drugs. We also should not invite people to the space who are unwilling to behave in a way that is respectful to the members and guests whose interests we share, and want to share. That means that, despite our aversion to exclusion, we need to choose between excluding some or excluding others. For example, if we refuse abusive or disrespectful behavior and those who insist on it, we create an accessible space for people who avoid that behavior. If we maintain an atmosphere of cooperation and care for each other and the hardware that is our space, we invite people from all backgrounds who seek to do the same things. On the other hand, if we refuse this responsibility, we allow the tone to be set by those with the loudest voice, and the least to lose, and the quiet and self-respecting people will go elsewhere. I ask that we look to the future to envision the challenges we can expect as we continue to grow and do more awesome things, and think about what we hope to achieve. That is why we need to protect ourselves, each other, and our hackerspace, from complacency and entropy as best we can. well, I feel that i have said more than enough about it for now, but if anyone has opinions on this i look forward to continuing the discussion. - -jake ______________________________**_________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.**org<sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… ______________________________**_________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSNRmpAAoJEN7XJK**HgSSB1jHUP/**izz19Jbbi62EIjMmCtGLTd3 I7JV4jofr4HovdyvDNXeJLtXBON7R0**BjtZq6+**jmm6ZZLb1so0JkN9cO6HIQ1aB62 +**Gztjv9HV56eNZCF9lCwYDnQgKETntA**bzAD245TtcCH5Faxz2JCfgoyNINKml**GJF MIy0c98gkUVeg+**uRBcD8Y0Q6BFIMs4RRTgVuP4Tj+**PfSOOjonUCi21GxCKkOirwV H25iFFqT5yVFKKWtANzW4ty32R3fSi**Dvrhy8FpwMVJuz+**wXg7C77ktnYANTtq5Hn dsLq2oU75jFfQtlPxQE/**JfaP39vULLYvu7ZvAEQmvPPewKVAw6**vzGlnMvJ1206Lz TlZe78/**7KIkrIJRCoo7dPw5m0rhe8O0p9uQ7b**BOUmPylCvuSg1mO+t2VhWDro9Y0 2ct/ZGkX1yJYizPvVCjdPztAnGFsk+**/4ATG3uEkIeZKM+LZNN/VfIVC+**FaDVf38w ds/**xBN2rlWwh5feat1xsB7fQUoBZJJ6z0**FCFoJdl7Di/xHyO53L++**tkj40kk46ps tZjGXnAOO5uh4W/**98cYqEvuEWZfFgdQs4KUoaZ4vnLbBQ**0wbjF0Zyk4w0LwzpNaB FDeGO3+**ym0XeODzqNBVfZ5Wn9pLcJ2OXtSjBK**pvvPg/eThbFBY42eJSH/TUU1hNg HkWLFY33hb9sJN1nA+nc =1i7D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----