I agree with Torrie. I am not a member (yet) but am new to the community and in a situation where this would be a nice step to becoming a member. It would give the psych a certain feeling of acceptance to allow for new members to speak up a bit more and get to know the community better, quicker. The new member (given the resources) could then also have opportunity to prove there skills to the community making their acceptance much more likely and swift. Further from this it gives a very established, professional feeling to the new comer and welcomes them in, enriching within them to help build the community and be constructive and creative. One is more likely to buy an item, if they are given a sample at the front door.
Not to mention the availability this leaves for the website and digital infrastructure down the road. If the service hosting were to increase, associated members could then get a small webspace with limited priviledges and quite possibly a shell with limited priviledges. This small introductory corner would allow them the sandbox to prove their skills and begin to get a taste of what the SYNHAK community is, in and outside of the facilities. As Torrie was saying, these account types could also be tagged to an academic tracking system that allows members to know and check who has been safety trained to use what machines/tools and any concerns over such. This tagging system could also be used as a means to keep notes on the users and raise issues/concerns or honors/promotions of said associated member, to the members. With maturity and incorporation, I would agree quite strongly with Torrie about this being a rather foundational element of the beginning steps of becoming a member. The structure would then lead towards established professionalism, in turn then leading towards becoming a 501c down the road and contribution to advancing said facilities could benefit the (associated) members by tax exemption. Just a few agreeances and thoughts. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > -- Sincerely, Tomm Smith God bless
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
