I totally agree with your assessment of the spaces you mention. But I think you are missing a key point that one of the other 2009 era hackspaces has thrived since then (well 2010) with virtually none of the problems you suggest to any of the degree seen at those other ones.
One of the key ways we have done this is resisting excessive growth by not moving into bigger premises and encouraging other spaces to form around us instead (we’ve happily lost members and equipment to swindon, basingstoke, oxford etc as they opened)
We are also REALLY militant about getting rid of stuff soon (including unused tools, not just member junk)
we also moved to making decisions informally in the space and not on mailing lists (which we do more now than ever, the mailing list is for advice and announcements pretty much), we don’t have large meetings unless really needed (I think we’ve had four in nine years?) or vote on stuff. We use a do-ocracy Advice Process (similar to the one in ‘reinventing organisations’ book)
We are also really pro-active with managing people with problematic attitudes or who need additional support, thanks to some really wise key members (who have changed over the years, we are lucky we have never had a shortage) who are well versed in handling these delicate situations head on, rather than letting them escalate.
we have had a few issues, had to ban someone etc, this will always happen, but i don’t think anyone has burnt out or suffered mental health issues from being part of the space to my knowledge
oh and we also have a great LGBTQ+ community too!
I really do feel lucky my home space has been so successful, I’ve dipped in an out over the years and each time i come back it’s just got better!
I would love to hear about why you feel bruised by your experience at South London Makerspace (either here or privately). i’ve only heard good things about it but i have only just got back from a number of years on the other side of the planet so my visibly was low.
I’ll respond with bullet points as the length of these topics is too long…
I am not sure which space you reffer and how you are affiliated so I won’t comment on that space thriving, however knowing people at LHS, Nottinghack and several others that have been burned by those spaces I wouldn’t suggest that a measure of success is the size of your community.
I agree that post-2009 era spaces (I believe @ChickenGrylls has been naming the generations) have implemented controls that work well
Limiting growth to under <500 is usually a starting point.
In-person decision making.
Pro-actively managing people.
I would suggest that because you don’t know anyone who has burnt out or suffered mental health issues doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, these are the people that often just slowly fade out of your communities as apposed to being unceremoniously kicked out.
I really miss having a community of people who I can joke with that I can be openly gay and have a few jokes with and it’s all good, I miss my space, but I don’t miss the impact it had on my well being when things were not going well.
oh damn, just realised i didn’t actually say its rlab - reading hackspace, founded 2010 (so a 2009 era hackspace? ) and you certainly can be openly gay in the space, a decent proportion of a our members (including key ones ) are LGBTQ+ , come visit us in Reading and have a laugh with us!
I think you have touched on a very key point that is missing from the general discussion on how to run a hackspace. Mental health is critical. If the directors/key members don’t have a good understanding of it and how to manage it well for all, any community will fail (even more so in this world of increasing pressures on people and diverse attitudes)
I realise i misspoke in my last post, we did have one member I can think of who left because of issues in the space. But as a result of that I championed a project to change the old guard and get the space to never do that again, and eventually that member has come back and I think for them seeing something was done about it helped immensely. I think this process was a key turning point in the communities success. It wasn’t easy to challenge a director who had lots of support (who resisted the issues even existed for quite a while, but i never gave up). Everyone now, including them, agrees it was essential to prevent the communities success story. It saddens me to hear this hasn’t happened in other spaces. Being a social justice warrior is essential in some situations, it’s a shame they have got such a bad name.
i really hope your negative experiences of hackspace hasn’t put you off trying again, we are all learning and people who have had negative experiences hold key information that can turn into lessons for us all, if we are willing to take them
I’ve now taken the suggestions made in the Google Doc, done a bit of editing, and moved it to this pull request, so if you have any further comments please put them there.
can i ask why you didn’t accept my edit to accept spaces which don’t use voting as a method of control? I know i can re-add it , but thought i would ask
My perspective has always to maintain the definition of a Hackspace as broad as possible and see no need to redefine it in the first paragraph.
My concern on Hackspace Magazine was that they would try to define or even restrict the hackspace definition.
I have also previously voiced my concern here that UK Hackspace Foundation too appear to want to over define a Hackspace and in consequence risk damaging the experimental nature of these places and frustrating the energies of people creating different new spaces.
The problem I have with the rest of the text is that the context is not clear. The UK Hackspace Foundation appears to have a number of different purposes and they do not make for a simple member definition. A Foundation is normally considered a source of funding, and as there is funding cash in the bank, then the definition of a suitable Hackspace for funding would depend on the commitments made when the funding was received. This definition may be quite restrictive.
The UK Hackspace Website gives another perspective offering promotion and coordination. I would suggest the best promotion is to have as broad as possible content to satisfy the massive diversity of demand rather than the above funding definition. Clear presentation of the organisations and values of the Hackspaces would go a long way to make it a valuable resource. Some Hackspaces listed may be restrictive on membership especially where they support specific communities or support different activities (longer term projects), but we should not diminish there value or opportunity.
For coordination it remains to be seen what that means. Hackspaces are still very much people and personality driven, I hope any proposals are supportive of this rather than restrictive to an ideal held by a few. I think it is premature for UK Hackspace Foundation to claim they represent Hackspaces in the UK until this is done.
I think for now it is best to concentrate on clearly defining the role, value, and deliverables of the UK Hackspace Foundation rather than define a Hackspace.
You’re right, and the whole “hackspace definition” thing is just an old term which has stuck. The document is purely qualifications for membership of the HSF. We do not attempt to enforce a definition of “hackspace” - that ship sailed quite a while ago.
The HSF is a mutual support organisation, and the qualifications for membership exist so that we know that support is going to a worthy cause.
It appears your motivation here is related to your belief that rLab would not be accepted as a member of the Hackspace Foundation under the current qualifications for membership.
I note that rLab is using boilerplate articles of association, which guarantee each member one vote, so I must assume that your objection is because rLab’s members are not legally members of the company which operates the space.
I don’t think this is a good way of structuring a hackspace, and this particular issue of governance is one of the main reasons why the HSF’s qualifications for membership exist. It’s my strong belief that hackspaces should be member-governed, and I know many of the other people involved with the HSF agree with me.
Company law gives members of an association two key methods to hold the directors to account: the ability to remove directors and to call a general meeting.
If members of the space aren’t members of the association, there is nothing stopping the board of directors from deciding to go against the wishes of the members and spending the members’ money however they like (or simply disappearing and leaving the association rudderless).
Any grant-giving organisation is going to look into governance issues like this before supporting an organisation, and I believe the HSF should be no exception.
This doesn’t mean you have to use voting for your day-to-day operations - most spaces don’t - but it provides a valuable failsafe. It also adds very little administrative hassle - you just have to maintain a register of members. Furthermore, it actually saves you money, because trade with members of an association is not subject to corporation tax.
you are of course totally right about members being legal members being a good idea. rlab DOES consider members as legal members of the organisation, we have a members register very well kept up to date and with ID check on every member to ensure we are registering a legal identity.
I got confused with using voting to deal with everyday issues, which we don’t do. We use an advice process now instead of having votes as they either lack quorum or consensus in my experience.
I suggest we keep the voting statement but make is clearer its not for deciding how the space is run, only legal matters? sorry again for the confusion, there was some confusion about this in our group years ago too which has been cleared up
) are LGBTQ+ , come visit us in Reading and have a laugh with us!