It's a trust network, not a blame network :)
More importantly, the signatures themselves aren't the point. They're an action that someone has to take to get to know people who already care enough to look after the things worth protecting. Even a background check company doesn't have that incentive: the best they can do is tell you about recorded red flags and legal infractions, not that somebody is going to be disrespectful or problematic (which is statistically more likely than having an actual criminal try to JOIN in a long-com operation). Worth noting: we've made tweaks to the signature model since we invented it, the most important being that we make sure that the new keyholder a) gets signatures from outside of their pre-existing circles. This means that for people who become new full time members as part of an existing team who works at Indy Hall, they need to get their sign off from people NOT on their team. We explain to them why the process is in place and everybody has understood and appreciated it b) they need to be able to say who signed their sheet after turning it over to us. Some people were just going around and getting signatures without actually getting to know people. If they can't even remember the name of who signed off on them, the signature doesn't count because they didn't hold up their end of the deal that makes the process work. There's a recent thread in the google group archives where I explained how little ACTUAL overnight/24 hour use happens, but I can't seem to copy the link to that thread form mobile :) if someone else can grab it before I do and post it here that'd be awesome. -- /ah indyhall.org On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Tom Brandt <[email protected]> wrote: > I worded that poorly. The supporting members are saying that they trust > this person to be a member, they are not guaranteeing it. If the new member > violates that trust, I am sure the supporting members would feel badly, but > nothing would happen to them. > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Marius Amado-Alves <[email protected]> > wrote: >> ... the signatures of three members who will vouch for them as good fits >>> for membership. >>> >> >> Just curious, should the new member mischieve, what would happen to the >> supporting members. >> >>> -- >> Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Coworking" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > twb > member, Workantile <http://workantile.com/> > @twbrandt > -- > Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Coworking" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
