Why is Cloyne not a hackbase? It is a hackerspace and you can live there. This is basic definition. Of course you have to be a member of an organization to be able to do so, like for many other hackerspaces you have to be a member of an organization to be able to use it. So why would this make it not a hackbase? This rule about "public access" is an arbitrary one. I think the initial definition is much clearer: a hackerspace where you can also live. You can have additional categorization (like no-membership hackbases) if you want for some of hackspaces. But how do you name then hackerspaces where members can also live in the same space? Mitar (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Happy to talk about this! What's not clear from Cloyne is how to get into the house. I'm not sure if it's only for the students paying tuition there or something like this. I wrote "publicly accessible (via a clear and non-discriminatory process)". To be a hackbase, it needs to also be reasonably fluid. For example, if it's 5 flats above a hackerspace constantly occupied by the same people without any place for people to drop in or out, I don't think it's very helpful to anybody to call this a hackbase (though this one I might be open to).
A general example I use (not spec to Cloyne), even though an awesome workshop, my gramp's garage is not a "hackerspace" because it's not publically accessible. Maybe somebody could talk to him and friend him and work there. That doesn't make it a hackerspace. Analogue goes for hackbases - if it's not open participation, in a clear and non-discriminatory way to "join", for fluid (as written) either short or long stays, it's probably not sensible to call it a hackbase.
This is why I put Cloyne under probably not a *base. If they have a clear process for anybody to get in there and live there (under probably any conditions!) + very preferably self-define as a hackbase, then it's a base.
As I said, you have to become a member of an organization to be able to use the hackerspace and live there. Many hackerspaces have that. So your definition of hackbase is in fact "no-membership hackerspace + coliving", and mine is "any hackerspace + coliving". If you want to reserve the term "hackbase" for your definition, please offer an alternative for my definition.
Personally, I think the term should be generic without any additional ideology attached. If it is a hackerspace and people can live there, it should be hackbase. And if you want then to further differentiate between membership vs. no membership required, fluid vs. more permanent, attach adjectives to that basic term. I think we could change the wiki page to have one list where it would be "no membership required hackbases" and "membership required hackbases". Much cleaner than what is now.
Also, you just added "this includes being publicly accessible (via a clear and non-discriminatory process)" to the list of requirements. I do not think you can just so change the definition of a hackbase, in the way how you feel you envisioned this term. Let it has its own life.