[hackerspaces] dossier pattern

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[hackerspaces] dossier pattern

sheila miguez
I have questions about the logistics involved in the dossier pattern.

https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Hackerspace_Design_Patterns_2.0#New_Hackerspace_Design_Patterns

Dossier Pattern
Problem: The board has received a complaint about a member, but the member says they didn't understand the rules. The board members are new and have no way to know whether the member has been a problem before.
Solution: Keep records of all member complaints in a system that is confidential and searchable. Even if someone doesn't want to make a formal complaint, leaving a note can help establish whether there is a pattern of misbehavior and help future boards follow up.

We agree that we'd like to use this pattern, but we are unsure of how to implement it. We've had a complicated year, and we'd like to keep some records. We've got two general areas that people worry about.

1. What to record.
2. How to preserve confidentiality and privacy.

Are any of you involved in an HR department or industrial organization psychology or whatever type of specialty would help give us ideas for what to capture and how to store it?

1. What to record.

When the dossier pattern has been brought up, we've had highly mixed reactions. One person said it was disgusting and would be used unfairly and that we'd be recording hearsay and use it as an excuse to kick people out. I'd like to find a way to mitigate those fears. It seems to me that there must exist existing procedures for recording behaviors and incidents that help. What processes do people use?

as an aside, it seems to me that most everyone I've talked to wants fairness, but some are worried about unfair accusations versus unfair dismissals. I don't feel like getting in to that topic, I just want to get something done that is good enough. It doesn't have to be perfect.

2. Confidentiality

I'd like to preserve confidentiality and privacy, including forward privacy. For example, I've had a situation where a person filed a complaint and asked for the exact language of the complaint not to be shared with the person involved. We gave the person who was involved a paraphrase of the situation. If that person becomes a board member, they will have access to board docs. Logistically speaking, what kind of protocol can I use that would have a reasonable chance of keeping things private for the person who filed the complaint? Should I just destroy the primary materials?





_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

hadez
Hi Sheila, List,

my 2ct:

I'd err on the side of data economy.
The fewer data you keep, the lower the potential for abuse is.
This also translates to "once you have data, someone will (want to) use it".


But let's look at the problem from another point of view (and beyond the 2ct level).

Caveat:
- For the most part I'll treat "member" equal to "member of the board". I do this because there should be no real difference between the two other than when we're dealing with legal or money issues.
- I'm assuming you've implemented the plenum pattern.
- YMMV. Everything I say below is based on personal experience.

Is the problem really that the board members are new and they do not know whether someone misbehaved before?
Or could it be that there's not enough communication in general between the members?
If you're using the plenum pattern, complaints should be brought up in the plenum, so everyone can contribute their side of the story.
However, anyone should also be able to approach the board with a complaint if a public discussion is not suitable (yet).

I'm saying "yet" because hackerspaces should foster a culture of open and fair communication between their members.
In the case of a complaint it could be judged that fairness would require to not disclose the exact nature of a complaint until the facts and history of everyone involved are known.
However, once the facts are known and the person targeted by the complaint had their chance to contribute their part of the story and the complaint turns out to be grounded in truth you should think about taking a more public (in the sense of members being the public here) stance suitable to the specific issue at hand.
The line between an open discussion and public shaming is often a thin one, so apply your best judgment.
Eg. if a member is to be thrown out as the result of a complaint, the other members should know what went wrong so they can learn from it.

The fact that the board is made up of new members should not be a problem here.
Why shouldn't members of the board be able to ask a few old-timers for input (disclosing information as sparingly as possible, of course)?

You make it sound like there's no communication between members and "the board" or, even worse, that the board is clueless with regards to the history and current development of the social group that is their members.

In our 5 1/2 years of existence we've had our fair share of complaints, both in confidence and public.
We've been able to address them without keeping track of individual missteps in a database.
The "swarm storage" that is the collective memories of our members was more than enough to give context to each of those complaints.
If something was serious and important, it'll be remembered.
But if you write everything down and file it in a database, you're effectively saying "you fucked up once, you're tainted forever" which takes away any possibility of personal development.
If there's one thing I've taken away from the last 5 1/2 years, it's that even the nicest folks can mess up (for whatever reason).
But also that folks that have been tearing each other up in nasty arguments and disagreements can make peace.
Likewise, folks that misbehaved in a ways that no longer really could be treated as "minor nuisance" bettered themselves and learned a lot from their misstep.
Quite some of the discussions we ended up having were socially and mentally very taxing on everyone involved. I'm talking shouting matches and tears here.
Such things never come easy. But that shouldn't be an excuse for not dealing with it.
I think it's fair to say that our group as a whole grew stronger from such experiences and everyone (I hope) was able to learn something from it.

I'm not saying that everything can be solved with giving a free pass and a second chance. Far from it.
Though it is still my strong opinion that tracking missteps in a database is way over the top and might be a indicator for your group as a whole should this be the only way you can think of dealing with issues like that.
If there's a disconnect between the board and the rest of the members (as your initial reasoning suggests), this might be a far graver problem you need to fix than recording blame for all of posterity.

TL;DR: Talk to each other and be excellent to each other.

Cheers,
hadez
shackspace

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:29 PM sheila miguez <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have questions about the logistics involved in the dossier pattern.

https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Hackerspace_Design_Patterns_2.0#New_Hackerspace_Design_Patterns

Dossier Pattern
Problem: The board has received a complaint about a member, but the member says they didn't understand the rules. The board members are new and have no way to know whether the member has been a problem before.
Solution: Keep records of all member complaints in a system that is confidential and searchable. Even if someone doesn't want to make a formal complaint, leaving a note can help establish whether there is a pattern of misbehavior and help future boards follow up.

We agree that we'd like to use this pattern, but we are unsure of how to implement it. We've had a complicated year, and we'd like to keep some records. We've got two general areas that people worry about.

1. What to record.
2. How to preserve confidentiality and privacy.

Are any of you involved in an HR department or industrial organization psychology or whatever type of specialty would help give us ideas for what to capture and how to store it?

1. What to record.

When the dossier pattern has been brought up, we've had highly mixed reactions. One person said it was disgusting and would be used unfairly and that we'd be recording hearsay and use it as an excuse to kick people out. I'd like to find a way to mitigate those fears. It seems to me that there must exist existing procedures for recording behaviors and incidents that help. What processes do people use?

as an aside, it seems to me that most everyone I've talked to wants fairness, but some are worried about unfair accusations versus unfair dismissals. I don't feel like getting in to that topic, I just want to get something done that is good enough. It doesn't have to be perfect.

2. Confidentiality

I'd like to preserve confidentiality and privacy, including forward privacy. For example, I've had a situation where a person filed a complaint and asked for the exact language of the complaint not to be shared with the person involved. We gave the person who was involved a paraphrase of the situation. If that person becomes a board member, they will have access to board docs. Logistically speaking, what kind of protocol can I use that would have a reasonable chance of keeping things private for the person who filed the complaint? Should I just destroy the primary materials?




_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Petr Baudis
In reply to this post by sheila miguez
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:28:51AM -0600, sheila miguez wrote:
> I have questions about the logistics involved in the dossier pattern.
>
> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Hackerspace_Design_Patterns_2.0#New_Hackerspace_Design_Patterns

  I would consider this pattern highly controversial and recommend
to think twice before implementing it.

> Dossier Pattern
> > Problem: The board has received a complaint about a member, but the member
> > says they didn't understand the rules. The board members are new and have
> > no way to know whether the member has been a problem before.
> > Solution: Keep records of all member complaints in a system that is
> > confidential and searchable. Even if someone doesn't want to make a formal
> > complaint, leaving a note can help establish whether there is a pattern of
> > misbehavior and help future boards follow up.

  I just fail to see the problem here.  People have some reputation and
if all people on your board are completely unaware of reputation of your
members, I don't see how you can be reasonably settling any disputes at
all.

  Implement soft security.  Aim to be fair, but (try to) not turn into
a bureaucracy machine.  If you are unsure about past actions, ask
others.  Typically, what they remember and know is more important for
the community wellbeing than what really happenned N years ago anyway.
A fragment of past communication with missing context and misfiled
followup may be just as harmful as having no dossiers.

  In other words, the ability to forget past mistakes is essential for
a healthy environment, even though non-obvious.

> We agree that we'd like to use this pattern, but we are unsure of how to
> implement it. We've had a complicated year, and we'd like to keep some
> records. We've got two general areas that people worry about.
>
> 1. What to record.
> 2. How to preserve confidentiality and privacy.

  These problems are what various institutions of all governments try to
solve too.  I don't think any has solved it without delineating a clear
"us"/"them" boundary and trusting various people not to leak stuff.
It seems Starfleet will have a pretty advanced access control system :P


  To stay constructive and propose a solution (that sidesteps both
issues) - track just what's a matter of public record anyway.  Meetups
minutes, mailing list posts, ...  No privacy issues, and you might
already have ways to search these.  All important incidents probably
came up on some of these forums, and if they didn't, maybe that's
a better issue to fix to engage your members more.

--
                                Petr Baudis
        If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
        you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

sheila miguez

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Petr Baudis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dossier Pattern
> > Problem: The board has received a complaint about a member, but the member
> > says they didn't understand the rules. The board members are new and have
> > no way to know whether the member has been a problem before.
> > Solution: Keep records of all member complaints in a system that is
> > confidential and searchable. Even if someone doesn't want to make a formal
> > complaint, leaving a note can help establish whether there is a pattern of
> > misbehavior and help future boards follow up.

  I just fail to see the problem here.  People have some reputation and
if all people on your board are completely unaware of reputation of your
members, I don't see how you can be reasonably settling any disputes at
all.

I think people can know reputation and have a context for when someone is having difficulties when there are 40 members, but once you get to 400 members you've exceeded Dunbar's number [1].

We hover around 400 members, and I don't know everyone. I've talked with some long term members and former members about difficulties with people in the space over the years because I wanted to know our failure modes to see what we can improve.

Some case studies from over the years

* One member was bad at self care and had serious problems. People couldn't help the member be functional, and the member was dangerous to themselves. If they ever want to come back, I think people should know to talk to the person to see if things have changed.

* One member was reckless and used equipment dangerously and did not change their behavior after being talked to. If this person wants to use tools again, people should know the background before re-authorizing the person to use tools.

* A non-member at an open event sexually harassed and stalked a member attending the event. The person was told not to come to the space anymore. I know about this situation because it was an event I ran, but I also know that we don't have documentation about this. It didn't occur to me until recently that we should track things.

In the first two cases, I think they could improve. In the last case, I do not want to give the person a second chance.



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Ron Bean-2
>Some case studies from over the years

My gut reaction is that those people are unlikely to come back.

It would be interesting to hear if any other hackerspaces have had that
happen.


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Matt Joyce
As a design pattern this breaks from a community / mutual trust model and enters the realm of a public / private access shared space model.  And that makes my experience somewhat not relatable.  There are bigger issues at play in that sort of model that I simply do not have much experience with from the management side.  In a community trust model this isn't really an issue at all, as you tend to know everyone and can spot the problem folks fairly quickly.  =/

However, we discussed some of this on a recent thread at weaponized social...  begins with this email:  https://lists.aspirationtech.org/lists/arc/weaponizedsocial/2015-11/msg00000.html

It's an interesting discussion.  I think the consensus was that toxic membership can only really be solved by excising toxic members.  How that's done is not clear, and not simple.  Especially in a situation in which the maintainers of the space are less involved in the curation of the community and it's members.  

I can tell you that I've seen systems used to register complaints be abused in the past.  There are some strategies that might act as passive triggers on such a person and in turn be used to alert the system to a potential malicious string of 'reports'.  But, fundamentally, there is a problem with second hand accusations.  All specific complaints should very definitely be first hand and focus on what occurred, when, and who can corroborate the events.  There's also preventative mechanisms that can be put in place to prevent some areas of friction outright.  I discuss in the thread above the idea of 'taboo' conversation topics.  Example:  NYC Resistor has a  no-politics discussion taboo in place.  It's not something members should bring up, as it's not really relevant to our goals as a community.  And it keeps the space more accessible to more hackers from more walks of life.  That's of course a pretty specific thing, obviously some spaces have some very politically oriented goals so they'd not want that.  But there are many hot button issues out there, and my guess is plenty of those issues can easily be kept outside the space while improving the overall inclusivity of the space.

Anywho... it's an interesting discussion.

More signal less noise, but filters by their nature will cut signal.  Biased filters, sometimes do an amazing job keeping your signal clean, but they bias the signal.  =/

-Matt





On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ron Bean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Some case studies from over the years

My gut reaction is that those people are unlikely to come back.

It would be interesting to hear if any other hackerspaces have had that
happen.


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

David Potocnik
/"Example:  NYC Resistor has a  no-politics discussion taboo in place.
It's not something members should bring up, as it's not really
relevant to our goals as a community.  And it keeps the space more
accessible to more hackers from more walks of life."/

Without any sense of either grief or superiority towards any of the
organisational forms - I thought (and probably share this with other
EU hackers) that's the very difference between what's called a
hackerspace, or what's not and is then called a makerspace.

To stay on topic, I'd suggest hackerspaces should remain without
dossiers and tightly-knit (if this means less than X members then
fine) with no paper trail, while a makerspace/fab lab/shared workshop
might want something different.

David / Totalism Hackbase (CHT)


On 17 November 2015 at 21:15, matt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As a design pattern this breaks from a community / mutual trust model and
> enters the realm of a public / private access shared space model.  And that
> makes my experience somewhat not relatable.  There are bigger issues at play
> in that sort of model that I simply do not have much experience with from
> the management side.  In a community trust model this isn't really an issue
> at all, as you tend to know everyone and can spot the problem folks fairly
> quickly.  =/
>
> However, we discussed some of this on a recent thread at weaponized
> social...  begins with this email:
> https://lists.aspirationtech.org/lists/arc/weaponizedsocial/2015-11/msg00000.html
>
> It's an interesting discussion.  I think the consensus was that toxic
> membership can only really be solved by excising toxic members.  How that's
> done is not clear, and not simple.  Especially in a situation in which the
> maintainers of the space are less involved in the curation of the community
> and it's members.
>
> I can tell you that I've seen systems used to register complaints be abused
> in the past.  There are some strategies that might act as passive triggers
> on such a person and in turn be used to alert the system to a potential
> malicious string of 'reports'.  But, fundamentally, there is a problem with
> second hand accusations.  All specific complaints should very definitely be
> first hand and focus on what occurred, when, and who can corroborate the
> events.  There's also preventative mechanisms that can be put in place to
> prevent some areas of friction outright.  I discuss in the thread above the
> idea of 'taboo' conversation topics.  Example:  NYC Resistor has a
> no-politics discussion taboo in place.  It's not something members should
> bring up, as it's not really relevant to our goals as a community.  And it
> keeps the space more accessible to more hackers from more walks of life.
> That's of course a pretty specific thing, obviously some spaces have some
> very politically oriented goals so they'd not want that.  But there are many
> hot button issues out there, and my guess is plenty of those issues can
> easily be kept outside the space while improving the overall inclusivity of
> the space.
>
> Anywho... it's an interesting discussion.
>
> More signal less noise, but filters by their nature will cut signal.  Biased
> filters, sometimes do an amazing job keeping your signal clean, but they
> bias the signal.  =/
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ron Bean
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >Some case studies from over the years
>>
>> My gut reaction is that those people are unlikely to come back.
>>
>> It would be interesting to hear if any other hackerspaces have had that
>> happen.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

sheila miguez

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, David Potocnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

To stay on topic, I'd suggest hackerspaces should remain without
dossiers and tightly-knit (if this means less than X members then
fine) with no paper trail, while a makerspace/fab lab/shared workshop
might want something different.

I'd want to have a good chance of maintaining large communities without having to resort to a corporate type of feel.  Maybe I should have started a thread about that instead of considering the dossier pattern as a means to that end.

I like the missing stair analogy being used in the discussion matt pointed to, and I've thought about people that way before because I follow pervocracy's blog.

Anyway, with a larger community people will depend on 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge. There is going to be vague background radiation of who is a missing stair. When I took on a role in the board, I was unhappy having to rely on vagueness. Maybe I don't have the social skills for that.

From this year, I decided not to be a board member again.  It's a combination of things, including being uncomfortable with judging people, the sense of unease, and also just myself. I got unhealthy from being too emotionally invested in wanting people to get along.

I think other people will do a better job! I'm going to nominate some members to the board next year who helped by working on peace-making this year.

Off topic, I bet there are some big cultural differences in how we/I approach things where I live and with people in different regions. I like what you said here:

Without any sense of either grief or superiority towards any of the
organisational forms - I thought (and probably share this with other

Finally, I appreciate how everyone has been in this thread. I was thinking with the programmer part brain and wanted to find some simple technical type of approach to throw at a social thing versus getting at it another way. Thanks for the replies.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Ron Bean-2
In reply to this post by David Potocnik
>Without any sense of either grief or superiority towards any of the
>organisational forms - I thought (and probably share this with other
>EU hackers) that's the very difference between what's called a
>hackerspace, or what's not and is then called a makerspace.

This sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Let's not forget that the term "hacker" predates computers (at least in
the US). And many of the early hackers were strongly apolitical (it was
more mixed later, but still many didn't pay attention to politics).

>To stay on topic, I'd suggest hackerspaces should remain without
>dossiers and tightly-knit (if this means less than X members then
>fine) with no paper trail, while a makerspace/fab lab/shared workshop
>might want something different.

By this definition, I wonder how many "true hackerspaces" exist in the
US. All the ones I know about lean heavily toward the "makerspace"
model, but they call themselves "hackerspaces" because they do both
kinds of activities.

There is a specific subtype of hacker who is very concerned about
privacy and doesn't want any kind of written record or security cameras
in the 'space, as you mentioned. I've suggested to some such folks that
they'd be happier splitting off and forming their own group, which would
be kept smaller for that reason. I'm not sure they saw the connection,
though-- they seemed to think that a big organization can run the same
way as a small one. And I'm not sure they realized how much easier it is
to start such an organization (because they can rent less space, and
therefore have more choices in the market).

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Matt Joyce
In reply to this post by David Potocnik
Interesting.  From what I've heard most folks draw the dividing line between makerspace / hackerspace on more hardware / manufactory oriented as opposed to purely code / software endeavours.  I disagree with that for a couple reasons.

I like the broader general use of the term hackerspace.  Why limit it?  And Makerspace has some negative connotations, in part due to the 'Make tm' empire and their control of that sort of branding.  I'd say there are very definitely more hardware oriented spaces and more software oriented spaces.  But that's really neither here nor there as far as the results are concerned.  NYC Resistor has generated plenty of neat software over the years as well as hardware.  Vice versa with any more software oriented hackerspaces.  

It's really the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that Makerspaces were some how culturally different from hackerspaces in the way you are suggesting.  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you are suggesting that hackerspaces are political in nature, and makerspaces are not?  I suppose from a CCC perspective I can see how you'd come to that sort of conclusion, but it's radically bizarre to me and probably most folks in the states. 

Where CCC began very much as a political entity, groups like the L0pht and the Model railroad club did not.  The US has a very fundamentally different history when it comes to hackerspaces and hacking in general.  To say nothing of basic cultural dis-similarities.  I think most of the US would disagree with that sort of dividing line.  In part because most folks simply don't see politics and hackerspaces as joined at the hip.  But also because 'Makerspace' already has existing pre-conceptions here that don't match up with your model.  Probably it's own rich discussion.  Interesting as hell.

-Matt

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:48 AM, David Potocnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
/"Example:  NYC Resistor has a  no-politics discussion taboo in place.
It's not something members should bring up, as it's not really
relevant to our goals as a community.  And it keeps the space more
accessible to more hackers from more walks of life."/

Without any sense of either grief or superiority towards any of the
organisational forms - I thought (and probably share this with other
EU hackers) that's the very difference between what's called a
hackerspace, or what's not and is then called a makerspace.

To stay on topic, I'd suggest hackerspaces should remain without
dossiers and tightly-knit (if this means less than X members then
fine) with no paper trail, while a makerspace/fab lab/shared workshop
might want something different.

David / Totalism Hackbase (CHT)


On 17 November 2015 at 21:15, matt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As a design pattern this breaks from a community / mutual trust model and
> enters the realm of a public / private access shared space model.  And that
> makes my experience somewhat not relatable.  There are bigger issues at play
> in that sort of model that I simply do not have much experience with from
> the management side.  In a community trust model this isn't really an issue
> at all, as you tend to know everyone and can spot the problem folks fairly
> quickly.  =/
>
> However, we discussed some of this on a recent thread at weaponized
> social...  begins with this email:
> https://lists.aspirationtech.org/lists/arc/weaponizedsocial/2015-11/msg00000.html
>
> It's an interesting discussion.  I think the consensus was that toxic
> membership can only really be solved by excising toxic members.  How that's
> done is not clear, and not simple.  Especially in a situation in which the
> maintainers of the space are less involved in the curation of the community
> and it's members.
>
> I can tell you that I've seen systems used to register complaints be abused
> in the past.  There are some strategies that might act as passive triggers
> on such a person and in turn be used to alert the system to a potential
> malicious string of 'reports'.  But, fundamentally, there is a problem with
> second hand accusations.  All specific complaints should very definitely be
> first hand and focus on what occurred, when, and who can corroborate the
> events.  There's also preventative mechanisms that can be put in place to
> prevent some areas of friction outright.  I discuss in the thread above the
> idea of 'taboo' conversation topics.  Example:  NYC Resistor has a
> no-politics discussion taboo in place.  It's not something members should
> bring up, as it's not really relevant to our goals as a community.  And it
> keeps the space more accessible to more hackers from more walks of life.
> That's of course a pretty specific thing, obviously some spaces have some
> very politically oriented goals so they'd not want that.  But there are many
> hot button issues out there, and my guess is plenty of those issues can
> easily be kept outside the space while improving the overall inclusivity of
> the space.
>
> Anywho... it's an interesting discussion.
>
> More signal less noise, but filters by their nature will cut signal.  Biased
> filters, sometimes do an amazing job keeping your signal clean, but they
> bias the signal.  =/
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ron Bean
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >Some case studies from over the years
>>
>> My gut reaction is that those people are unlikely to come back.
>>
>> It would be interesting to hear if any other hackerspaces have had that
>> happen.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

Randall Arnold

Not to argue with your (valid IMO) points Matt, but let's also keep in mind that "hacker" has negative connotations outside the culture, ergo many identifying as Maker to gain more mainstream acceptance.

Not that there's anything wrong with that... ;)


Randy

(oh, and politics killed OUR maker org: http://texrat.net/tarrant-makers-fall-of-a-foundation/)

On November 18, 2015 at 10:38 AM matt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting.  From what I've heard most folks draw the dividing line between makerspace / hackerspace on more hardware / manufactory oriented as opposed to purely code / software endeavours.  I disagree with that for a couple reasons.

I like the broader general use of the term hackerspace.  Why limit it?  And Makerspace has some negative connotations, in part due to the 'Make tm' empire and their control of that sort of branding.  I'd say there are very definitely more hardware oriented spaces and more software oriented spaces.  But that's really neither here nor there as far as the results are concerned.  NYC Resistor has generated plenty of neat software over the years as well as hardware.  Vice versa with any more software oriented hackerspaces.  

It's really the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that Makerspaces were some how culturally different from hackerspaces in the way you are suggesting.  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you are suggesting that hackerspaces are political in nature, and makerspaces are not?  I suppose from a CCC perspective I can see how you'd come to that sort of conclusion, but it's radically bizarre to me and probably most folks in the states. 

Where CCC began very much as a political entity, groups like the L0pht and the Model railroad club did not.  The US has a very fundamentally different history when it comes to hackerspaces and hacking in general.  To say nothing of basic cultural dis-similarities.  I think most of the US would disagree with that sort of dividing line.  In part because most folks simply don't see politics and hackerspaces as joined at the hip.  But also because 'Makerspace' already has existing pre-conceptions here that don't match up with your model.  Probably it's own rich discussion.  Interesting as hell.

-Matt

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:48 AM, David Potocnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
/"Example:  NYC Resistor has a  no-politics discussion taboo in place.
It's not something members should bring up, as it's not really
relevant to our goals as a community.  And it keeps the space more
accessible to more hackers from more walks of life."/

Without any sense of either grief or superiority towards any of the
organisational forms - I thought (and probably share this with other
EU hackers) that's the very difference between what's called a
hackerspace, or what's not and is then called a makerspace.

To stay on topic, I'd suggest hackerspaces should remain without
dossiers and tightly-knit (if this means less than X members then
fine) with no paper trail, while a makerspace/fab lab/shared workshop
might want something different.

David / Totalism Hackbase (CHT)


On 17 November 2015 at 21:15, matt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As a design pattern this breaks from a community / mutual trust model and
> enters the realm of a public / private access shared space model.  And that
> makes my experience somewhat not relatable.  There are bigger issues at play
> in that sort of model that I simply do not have much experience with from
> the management side.  In a community trust model this isn't really an issue
> at all, as you tend to know everyone and can spot the problem folks fairly
> quickly.  =/
>
> However, we discussed some of this on a recent thread at weaponized
> social...  begins with this email:
> https://lists.aspirationtech.org/lists/arc/weaponizedsocial/2015-11/msg00000.html
>
> It's an interesting discussion.  I think the consensus was that toxic
> membership can only really be solved by excising toxic members.  How that's
> done is not clear, and not simple.  Especially in a situation in which the
> maintainers of the space are less involved in the curation of the community
> and it's members.
>
> I can tell you that I've seen systems used to register complaints be abused
> in the past.  There are some strategies that might act as passive triggers
> on such a person and in turn be used to alert the system to a potential
> malicious string of 'reports'.  But, fundamentally, there is a problem with
> second hand accusations.  All specific complaints should very definitely be
> first hand and focus on what occurred, when, and who can corroborate the
> events.  There's also preventative mechanisms that can be put in place to
> prevent some areas of friction outright.  I discuss in the thread above the
> idea of 'taboo' conversation topics.  Example:  NYC Resistor has a
> no-politics discussion taboo in place.  It's not something members should
> bring up, as it's not really relevant to our goals as a community.  And it
> keeps the space more accessible to more hackers from more walks of life.
> That's of course a pretty specific thing, obviously some spaces have some
> very politically oriented goals so they'd not want that.  But there are many
> hot button issues out there, and my guess is plenty of those issues can
> easily be kept outside the space while improving the overall inclusivity of
> the space.
>
> Anywho... it's an interesting discussion.
>
> More signal less noise, but filters by their nature will cut signal.  Biased
> filters, sometimes do an amazing job keeping your signal clean, but they
> bias the signal.  =/
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Ron Bean
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >Some case studies from over the years
>>
>> My gut reaction is that those people are unlikely to come back.
>>
>> It would be interesting to hear if any other hackerspaces have had that
>> happen.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


 


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [hackerspaces] dossier pattern

sheila miguez
In reply to this post by Matt Joyce

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:38 AM, matt <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like the broader general use of the term hackerspace.  Why limit it?  And Makerspace has some negative connotations, in part due to the 'Make tm' empire and their control of that sort of branding.  I'd

I don't like calling our space a maker space due to this. When I'm explaining what I do to friends and family who aren't familiar with the concept, and who might not know that the word "hacker" is positive, I tend to say things like "it's like a co-op of people with shop stuff and other areas and they do stuff together." or "community workshop, emphasis on the community" or use some sort of language like that.

I tend to prefer hackerspace. I end up doing more software types of things than I mean to, and have office hours for programming type of things. I want people to be happy with members who do software, hardware, shop stuff, art stuff. I don't want people to clash. and I don't want to be a Make (TM) type of place. I want people to be cognizant of cultural differences and preferences and learn to coexist in the same building and organization as me and also get along. I think this is possible with enough social skills and help.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Loading...