On Monday, March 03, 2014 17:57:16 a l wrote: > I didn't reply due to no concerns as the proposal is laid out here. I guess > my question is: Why? Why does someone want to become an associate member? > Are they allowed some small storage? They can't be a keyholder since that > is a privilege of membership, so it wouldn't grant them additonal access to > the space. Perhaps I underestimate the draw of a completely arbitrary > title. > Since it doesn't really change much I have no reason to block it though.
It establishes a web of trust model within the space and provides a sense of belonging. If some unknown guest is milling about, one can easily request what their username is and figure out if they are someone that the community trusts to be at SYNHAK. By having a username, it also encourages them to use the infrastructure on synhak.org more, namely the wiki. Additionally, I'm sure there are quite a few people who would love to say "I'm a member of SYNHAK", especially visiting hackers. It gives a sense of belonging. For example, I'm not a full Council Member of Noisebridge. I am, however, an Associate Member. In a way, I am a part of the Noisebridge community more than someone who isn't an Associate Member. It gives me warm fuzzies. <3 > > > regards, > Andrew L > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > > No discussion on a mechanism that has the potential to prevent future > > tension? > > > > This makes me sad > > > > :( > > > > On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:29:34 Torrie Fischer wrote: > > > I'd like to discuss the possibility of an additional class of members > > > > based > > > > > on the success I've seen of using it at Noisebridge. Right now, we've > > > got > > > just one class of members called Members. Some time ago, they introduced > > > > a > > > > > second group called Associate Members. The procedure for becoming an > > > associate member is pretty simple: > > > > > > https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership#Associate_Members > > > > > > Essentially, you create a User wiki page, find four sponsors (who are > > > > other > > > > > associate members or regular members), then add a category tag to your > > > > page. > > > > > Associate members can't participate in governance or need to pay dues, > > > > but > > > > > it does give a sense of belonging and establishes a network of trust > > > between active community participants who have not become full members > > > > and > > > > > full members. We're a lot more than just a tiny handful of maybe a dozen > > > active contributors! > > > > > > I think we can differ from NB's implementation by requiring that least > > > > one > > > > > of the four sponsors must be a full Member. > > > > > > Since I'm not a fan of using the wiki to maintain any kind of membership > > > records, I'd like to implement something like that in spiff as an > > > implementation of the next milestone of a plugin architecture. > > > > > > Feedback, please! > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
