Talk:Sudo room/Compact

Discussion Related to Purpose on July 28, 2012

In regards to the purpose, discussion arose as to whether or not the text that was written for the website should be cut and paste directly into the by-laws or whether the text should be made specific and concise for the sake of these initial by-laws. Among the issues that came into discussion was whether or not we could still use the term non-hierarchical in the description if we were going to outline the additional benefits and responsibilities of members as distinct from other people interested in participating in Sudo Room. In addition, the listing of some themes and interests of people participating in sudo room that were listed in the description written for the fund-raising party was questioned as being necessary to include in the by-laws definition of purpose. It was resolved that the exclusion of other interests such as food security, access to medicines, open educational resources, and others would not be prudent at this stage in order to remain with the drafter's initial text.

The issue also came up as to whether or not the word hackerspace was necessary to include in the by-laws, given the convoluted history and meaning of the term. Despite two participants among the five regulars suggesting that the word was not necessary, and four out of the five concurring with the concerns mentioned, the initial drafter of the text insisted that this was not negotiable. Discussion proceeded with the initial drafter of the provisional text threatening to start another compact of people for the establishment of an organization named sudo room if the word hackerspace was not included. The others finally capitulated in response to the threat, but insisted that a link remain from the term hackerspace to another location within the By-Laws so that the purpose of using the term, to re-appropriate it from its mainstream meaning, be made clear to those interested in sudo room. It was then suggested that other terms also be linked from the by-laws to further clarify their meaning, such as community, creativity, innovation, and other terms. Eddankatz 05:26, 30 July 2012 (CEST)

Being "the initial drafter" as described in the comment above, I'd like to explain. I hope no one interpreted my expressed personal opinions as non-negotiable or as threats. I used the word "critical" to describe how I feel about the term hackerspace. I believe it is critical, that much is true. But non-negotiable? I try to be wiser than to take arbitrary positions like that, so I hope this can be resolved. As for the "threat" I believe this is a misunderstanding. I was trying to center focus on the context of this compact. We are striving to create a document that will help bind at least 23 people to move forward with sudo room. I suggested that I felt there were at least 23 people who have already been participating heavily who would be comfortable with and supportive of using the term "hackerspace". I suggested that there may be "another 23 people" who would sign one without it (who could very well be the same 23 people as before), but I meant that as a suggestion to consider the present context, not a threat that we should fork the compact drafting. That would be silly and unproductive at this point in time. Hope we can clear up these misunderstandings and move forward. Also remember we're writing a first draft.Wrought 06:30, 30 July 2012 (CEST)

It is unclear how the parsing of the suggestion to create another compact with only the removal of the term hackerspace from the compact being discussed is distinguishable from the posture of non-negotiation. It is agreed that such a practice is directly counter to the collaborative environment suggested for sudo room. The inclusion of the term hackerspace in the purpose section of the Articles of Association is easily resolved, as was suggested with the inclusion of dynamic links to significant and controversial terms. The extent of discretion exercised by the facilitator of meetings, also serving as the scribe, is less easily resolved. Eddankatz 29 July 2012, 20:11 (PDT)

Principles relating to Budget

The following was suggested for the maintenance of the budget - "zero-sum (ideally)," - and was removed due to its inherent contradiction with the openness to a variety of business models, the attempt to maintain a diversity of tax structures to motivate creativity and innovation, and its lack of clarity as to actual meaning. As has been shared consistently at previous meetings, participation in sudo room for some individuals must be connected to the ability to earn a livelihood, rather than as a recreational hobby, otherwise those individuals would not be able to participate. The openness to this possibility has been preserved by resisting non-profit status immediately, and without undue prejudice against profit as an incentive for creativity and innovation. This is also an instance of de-institutionalizing the influence of money on power - due to the restricted ability of participants without excess resources to participate. The ability to earn a living does not necessarily compromise the freedom in sudo room values, but is rather a foundation of economic self-determination prerequisite the creativity and innovation envisioned by the initial discussants of sudo room's formation. Eddankatz 19:47, 29 July 2012 (PDT)

Membership Contribution

Question regarding the proposal for the distribution of surplus funds amongst participants based on membership contribution:

• How is this membership contribution measured?
• Is there some sort of process by which hours spent at the physical space, logged in and editing the wiki, meetings attended, and other time-based metrics of membership contribution are calculated?
• Over what period of time is the membership contribution designation held to be valid and how often does this status fluctuate?

Benefits

I have a problem with the following from section 2.3: Note: no personal property should be stored in sudo room unless a system for personal storage can be provided by sudo room.. I think it is vitally important that people can store their personal projects and tools at sudo room and also lend tools to sudo room for extended periods of time. I don't think we have to deal with this in the compact. We should figure out solutions for this as the space and structures for storage evolve. We could put in something about sudo room not taking any responsibility for personal items stored in the space if that makes anyone feel better. Juul 23:52, 6 August 2012 (CEST)

I also think this is overbroad and impracticable. Maybe we could have some spaces that are specifically designated to be for the use of sudo room, such as the orange closet. It would be a shame if someone forgot something there after a meeting and it became common property simply because it was left, which is what I understand this clause to mean. Eddankatz 20:31, 6 August 2012 (PDT)

Sub-Section 3.0.0 Meetings

I think we should specify a few base things that require an "official meeting". Two that are important to have defined early is: Spending over a certain amount of money (let's say more than $500?) and banning a member. We should also specify exactly how for in advance an official meeting must be announced and exactly how it must be announced in order to decide on things that require an official meeting (e.g. at least two weeks in advance on both the discuss and announce mailing lists). Juul 00:12, 7 August 2012 (CEST)

Spending money

I think we should make it simple to spend smaller amounts of sudo room money (I'm assuming we will have money at some point in the future), to buy things for the space. At Labitat (copenhagen hacker spacer) we went by the 48 hour rule: You have to announce what you intend to spend money on at least 48 hours in advance and anyone can veto the decision, forcing it to be taken up at an official meeting. Labitat also has a fridge where people can buy drinks and snacks where people just leave money in a jar. People can take from this jar to buy small things such as toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc. and it's all honour system. Juul 00:12, 7 August 2012 (CEST)

Conditions of Ratification

Not sure why this is necessary to be spelled out in the compact. Couldn't this be included within the minutes, rather than in the compact itself? Is it wise to make revising the compact mandatory at certain times, even when there is nothing being suggested for modification? Eddankatz 20:23, 6 August 2012 (PDT)