My impression is that there are some feelings or comments which aren’t being addressed. Though badspyro has commented on some of them well. I will input my opinion also in the hope that it helps.
There’s an ethos that has underpinned hack(er)spaces since their inception. Where they did somewhat start off initially as electronics hacking and making.
That ethos has been ‘by the people, for the people’ and to fight for and ensure that freedom. My impression is that this is intended to still be reinforced with Hackspaces, and so that is why there has been the mindset of supporting member hackspaces of the hackspace foundation to be community run, and run by the members, decided by the members.
There has been no specific ‘set definition’ of what a Hackspace is, the documentation on the site of what states to be the ‘hackspace definition’ was discussed at the last meeting (First UK Hackspace Foundation V2 meetup) and it was decided that it is more a draft of requirements for membership, and it is not perfect.
What being a member, and being an associate member mean are semantics. What the definition on the site currently is stated as being, is also liable to change.
I have my own views and observations of what a ‘Hackspace’ is, what a ‘Makerspace’ is and how these are shaping in society today.
No-one should feel that what they’re calling their ‘Hackspace’ is ‘wrong’ or ‘not done right’, especially by the definition on this website, or any future definition. Understand that any requirements for membership to the Hackspace Foundation or whichever benefits they may offer is not a criticism of what a Hackspace is, there purely has to be a baseline for which someone goes “okay, we have to stand for something, we have to draw the line somewhere as to what that means” and so far, discussed between people and the directors. This is what we have at present, and it can change.