Ahoj,

díky Holube za zajímavý průzkum :-)

Zajímavé mi přijdou hlavně tyto postřehy:

- The bylaws defined a board of directors, who could appoint members to be responsible for various spaces within our hackerspace (woodshop, electronics bench, 3D printer zone, etc.). These "area captains" take ownership in making sure tools are maintained and things are put away. We believe very strongly in actocracy, but we also believe that there needs to be some structure to keep things moving.

- The bylaws allow for members to be banned (this has only come up once). They also allow members to propose rules by which the space must be run. One of the rules defines a means storing half-finished projects in the space, so long as there is the owner's name and date they'll finish the project. If a lot of clutter is building up in the space, a board member can put tags on abandoned projects, take pictures of them, email the membership, and give people a week to respond before projects are thrown out. There's very little email drama around it because people understand the rules.

- /(Otázka: Does really anarchy/actocracy work for you or do you have some set of/ more specific rules?) More specific. Actocracy works well in early stages when a small core of people are building the space, but it doesn't scale well I've found.

- /(Otázka: How do you deal with equipment having damaged/stolen?/) Equipment breaks. We set aside some money to fix it. If we find a member is intentionally damaging equipment, that's a problem that we deal with./ /

/ /

/- (Otázka: How do you deal with abandoned dust-covered projects whose owner doesn't/ care about these anymore?) Create a rule that the membership finds reasonable that lets you give a lot of warning that something will be thrown out if the owner doesn't remove it or petition for it to be saved in an entirely reasonable amount of time. Give plenty of warning, and err on the side of leniency, but you can't let your hackerspace become an unusable pile of electronics waste.

-*Problem:* Members in a large group have different values, making it difficult to make decisions.*Solution:* Early on, create a list of "common principles" or "points of unity" that describe the ideals that were important to the early members. These ideals should be explained to all new members. Debates should be framed in these common principles. Principles can be revised, added, or deleted, but only if there is consensus.

- *Problem:* On-boarding new members is difficult. New members can have trouble finding the resources they need and learning their responsibilities as members.*Solution:* Every new member is assigned an experienced member as a mentor. When the member has a question, they can go to the mentor to find the answer. If the member is acting out of line with the group's principles, the mentor can talk to them.

- *Problem:* There are a lot of space usage decisions to make, but most are irrelevant to any particular person.*Solution:* Appoint a caretaker for each zone in the space (machine shop, craft room, etc.) The caretaker's contact info is posted publicly in that zone. If a member has a question or a problem in that zone, they can contact the caretaker to fix it. The caretaker gets final say on space usage decisions.

*- Problem:* Maintenance and cleaning is boring and no one wants to do it.*Solution:* Hold a combination pot luck and lock-in. Everyone works on maintenance and cleaning and takes a break to share home-cooked meals with each other. No one leaves until time is up.

- *Problem:* Conduct complaints turn into popularity contests.*Solution:* When discussing conduct complaints, judge actions instead of character. Be clear about which specific actions were inappropriate and why. This has the benefit of reinforcing behavioral norms for other members.

- *Problem:* Everyone has an opinion on how a task should be done, but no one shows up to do it.*Solution:* Make it so that members have to put some effort in before they get to have input. Have discussions in committee meetings outside of general meetings, and require homework (e.g. email in proposals beforehand). If someone doesn't show up regularly, or doesn't do constructive work, stop inviting them to the meetings.

- Zaaujalo mě: "How do you organize your hackerspace? - 5 board members meet monthly to go over financials, old business and new business. We also plan events and classes, and anything else that needs to be done to keep the space running and the bills paid, etc." - Nestálo by za to zvážit, že by se Rada scházela třeba skutečně jen jednou měsíčně, ale s tím, že by se všichni shodli na tom, že se v daném termínu můžou dostavit?

- (Otázka: Does really anarchy/actocracy work for you or do you have some set of more specific rules)  We have rules but if something needs to be done and it won't hurt anyone or the space or break anything, just do it and let the board members know. We have an email address that automatically emails all 5 of us at once for everyone and the public to use. For example, our laser cutter broke by cutting its own water cooling lines (we kept the bucket underneath the cabinet thinking it had a metal sheet under the honeycomb, it does not) and one of our new members fixed it by replacing the hoses and another new member built a wooden "table" that fits underneath to protect the hoses. Kinda like a do-ocracy of sorts?

- (Otázka: How do you deal with abandoned dust-covered projects whose owner doesn't care about these anymore?) We have a rule that no one can leave projects out on any of the tables so you have to store it in your member storage box (cardboard bankers box from Staples). If it doesn't fit then take it home. If your project is drying glue or paint, etc. then put a note on it with your name and date you'll be back. After that date we start sending emails. Then after a few days we email again and call you. If no response then it gets broken down into parts to be used by other members in their projects or thrown away.

- odkaz na aktokracii https://github.com/0x20/HTH/blob/master/2-do-ocracy.md - konkrétně: Limitations: Some things are too sensitive to be handled by do-ocracy alone, or are irreversible, like throwing things away. Refer to the Sections on the board, meetings and the guidelines for more information of when strict do-ocracy doesn't apply. In general, if an action is irreversible, do-ocracy does not apply and you should discuss it with the larger group.

- zajímavý odkaz https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm - kde je vysvětleno, že skutečně neorganizované struktury (tedy anarchistické) neexistují; vždy se v nich spontánně vyvine nějaká struktura zahrnující elitu, která skupinu kontroluje. (Elitou je v Brmlabu Rada, a podle tohoto konceptu i lidé, kteří nejsou členy Rady, ale jsou s radními buď spřízněni, nebo mají jinak získané výsadní postavení.) Zdánlivá nestrukturovanost je horší než oficiální strukturovanost v tom, že příslušníkům elity přináší moc významně větší, než povinnosti. Proto ji taky nejvíce obhajují ti, co jsou fakticky u moci.

- podle mého názoru velice hezká pravidla https://github.com/0x20/HTH/blob/master/6-guidelines.md . Avšak není řešen postup, pokud je někdo nedodržuje. A důležitý odstavec: "Basically we've come the observation that "/use common sense/" and "/be excellent/" don't always suffice as a /code of conduct/. This is because different people have different realities, values and morals. We think this diversity is a good thing. However in a communal context where these realities clash with each other it creates friction and conflict."

- A do-ocracy (or meritocracy, or the "be excellent to each other" type of rules) works great in a community where every persons gets to interact with every other person. Lots of group dynamic theories here, subtleties might differ. Won't elaborate. At a given point, different persons have a different vision of excellence (or 'doing stuff'). Especially when people did big efforts to do things they find important for the space (major clean up is a typical example) that others might not notice (really? wasn't that table empty all the time?), appreciate (meh, I love a bit of a mess) or even not approve of ("wow, I can't find anything anymore now" or "who ditched my car I've been planning to work on the last 3 years?") - this can get painful. Here are a few of the hidden dynamics behind it (that people often aren't aware of themselves): * quid pro quo: "I did this effort, so I expect at least the same effort from others" * "not maintaining what I did, is a form of disrespect" (towards me or towards the space) * failure to see a difference in vision.

- (Otázka: Does really anarchy/actocracy work for you or do you have some set of more  specific rules?) Won't answer here, what we're doing isn't working. We're in the phase of rethinking this.

- (Otázka: How do you deal with equipment having damaged/stolen?) Well... there's a huge difference between 3 kinds of breakage: "I fucked up" - "Carelessness" - "Malintent" (you could state the same for stealing). Fuckups... are inherent part of learning and being creative. So let's see how we can solve this as a group (person breaking stuff obviously chips in). Carelessness... is a tough one - often there's no real culprit. Thinking of machines breaking because of lack of maintenance. I like the idea of a responsible for every area (saw this idea in Electrolab Paris too). Malintent... is often a manifestation of a deeper rooted problem (with the individual, like drug addiction - or with the space, like sindering conflicts). Often a person leaves after this breach... or you can take on a personal and/or group track of restauration.

- (Otázka: Do you reward members having put some efforts in hackerpace running or  just all members are equal?) We've tried a few small things - not really worth noting though. The most important thing is saying "thank you" and putting great jobs in the spotlight. This can even be a "thank you to the unknown person". Ever sent a picture of the cleaned up space you walked into to the mailing list adding: "thanks to whoever cleaned up our space! You are excellent." Pretty sure the person(s) who did it, will feel great (even if nobody knows who it was).

Co z toho vyplývá: všechny hackerspaces řeší stejné problémy jako my. A nevím jak vy, ale já jejich odpovědi interpretuji jako shledání, že aktokracie a postoj "nic neřešme, ono se to vyřeší" prostě v určité situaci přestávají fungovat.

A jedna poznámka: bavila jsem se minulý týden se svým psychoterapeutem (jo, jednoho jsem si našla, a všem to doporučuju :-D) o Brmlabu, jen velmi stručně jsem mu nastínila situaci. Jeho odpověď zněla: takhle končí všechny komunity, které nevznikají za účelem externí produkce - tj. hlavně byznysu. Popsal mi to na hnutí hippies, s tím, že to platí obecně. Vývoj je takový, že skupinu nejprve založí několik "otců zakladatelů" (skutečně ten termín použil), nějakou dobu to funguje. Ale časem se přidají lidi, co více čerpají než investují, spontánní dynamika přestane fungovat, u zakladatelů vzrůstá dluh - nějakou dobu zvládají systém dotovat, ale pak se vyčerpají a odejdou. Zbytek, zvyklý na svůj konzumentský přístup, ho obvykle není schopen změnit, zreformovat se. Skupina se rozpadne.

Ještě jednou díky, Holube.

Barney

Dne 13.11.2018 v 21:09 Robert Holub napsal(a):

Ahoj,

na zaklade diskuzi jak dal v BRM mne napadlo se zeptat, jak je to jinde. Thread muzete sledovat zde:

http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/2018-November/thread.html

Jiz jsou tam pekne odpovedi.

Mr.Holub

---

Brmlab mailing list Brmlab@brmlab.cz https://brmlab.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/brmlab