HackerspaceCommunityDynamics: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Undo revision 46182 by 62.210.206.25 (talk)) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
An agenda-based discussion group that ran at HOPE X in [http://wiki.hope.net/wiki/NoisySquare Noisysquare] on Sunday, July 20th, at 2pm. | An agenda-based discussion group that ran at HOPE X in [http://wiki.hope.net/wiki/NoisySquare Noisysquare] on Sunday, July 20th, at 2pm. | ||
[[File:HOPEX_HackerspaceCommunityDynamics_flyer.pdf]] | |||
Notes by [http://civic.mit.edu/users/elplatt Ed Platt]: [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/elplatt/hope-x-hackerspace-community-dynamics-meet-up] | |||
Discussion Topics: | Discussion Topics: | ||
* '''Hacker Sociology:''' | * '''Hacker Sociology:''' Are hackers just regular people with superpowers, or are special approaches needed for this "special" array of personalities? Are certain personality archetypes attracted to these spaces (either for better or for worse)? | ||
* ''' | * '''Consensus:''' How does it really work? What other models are working? | ||
* ''' | * '''Community Process:''' Let's talk about illustrative examples of people with fundamental belief-system conflicts (e.g. "surveillance is evil" versus "we need security cameras") and their ability to iron out differences. | ||
* ''' | * '''Burnout and Member Turnover:''' Is it an inevitable consequence of hackerspace community dynamics or is it preventable ? | ||
* '''The Effectiveness of Policy:''' What are the best and worst examples of policies created at any point in a hackerspace's lifetime? Opinionated rantings welcome. | |||
=== Optional Reading | Throughout all parts of the discussion, we will want to keep asking the key questions: How can we effectively balance our noble goal of maintaining and encouraging our community's vibrant diversity with the perceived need to continually enact+enforce an increasing degree of conformism and homogeneity to our contrived policies? ''and'' What knowledge can we apply from the wider world towards our approaches? | ||
=== Optional Reading Assignment(s), by Naomi* === | |||
A written example of a positively diverse community that presumes to suggest an increasing lack of cohesiveness or trust: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_08_06<br> | |||
''*'' Possibility of variant opinions to the above. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:43, 6 January 2015
Hackerspace Community Dynamics[edit]
An agenda-based discussion group that ran at HOPE X in Noisysquare on Sunday, July 20th, at 2pm.
File:HOPEX HackerspaceCommunityDynamics flyer.pdf
Discussion Topics:
- Hacker Sociology: Are hackers just regular people with superpowers, or are special approaches needed for this "special" array of personalities? Are certain personality archetypes attracted to these spaces (either for better or for worse)?
- Consensus: How does it really work? What other models are working?
- Community Process: Let's talk about illustrative examples of people with fundamental belief-system conflicts (e.g. "surveillance is evil" versus "we need security cameras") and their ability to iron out differences.
- Burnout and Member Turnover: Is it an inevitable consequence of hackerspace community dynamics or is it preventable ?
- The Effectiveness of Policy: What are the best and worst examples of policies created at any point in a hackerspace's lifetime? Opinionated rantings welcome.
Throughout all parts of the discussion, we will want to keep asking the key questions: How can we effectively balance our noble goal of maintaining and encouraging our community's vibrant diversity with the perceived need to continually enact+enforce an increasing degree of conformism and homogeneity to our contrived policies? and What knowledge can we apply from the wider world towards our approaches?
Optional Reading Assignment(s), by Naomi*[edit]
A written example of a positively diverse community that presumes to suggest an increasing lack of cohesiveness or trust: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_08_06
* Possibility of variant opinions to the above.