3 ms·

I run a small lab / hacker space. We've learned that a lack of structure is actually quite oppressive and can lead to conflict. The community is best served by

by soyiuz 10y ago

I run a small lab / hacker space. We've learned that a lack of structure is actually quite oppressive and can lead to conflict. The community is best served by clear rules of conduct. So for example furniture arrangement (leaving the space how you found it) is an important rule that minimizes friction between constituent groups. The same goes for food and/or incense guidelines. (We discourage both in our space, since it interferes with the work of others).

m3rc 10y ago
It's kind of funny looking back on the decision making process to get to that point. Like now, obviously, of course you need these sort of rules for a communal space, just the way it's important not to burn incense or do crappy food shit wen you're living with a roommate. But when you go to make something new like a hackerspace, it's so easy to get tricked into just thinking "Rules are bad! I'm sure people will work things out on their own if we just foster a space conducive to collaboration!"
jdietrich 10y ago
>We've learned that a lack of structure is actually quite oppressive and can lead to conflict. Jo Freedman wrote a now-legendary essay on exactly that issue in 1970. She was writing about her experiences in the women's liberation movement, but her essay is essential reading for anyone aspiring to run an organisation in a non-hierarchical manner. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- squeed 10y ago
  Wow, what an amazing article. I wish I'd read this a decade ago.
devishard 10y ago
There are two levels to power that I've identified in anti-authoritarian groups. The first is the making and enforcement of the rules, and the second is the meta-game in which people get into positions of making our enforcing rules. It sounds like your community has figured out the first kind of power somewhat, but I urge you to consider carefully the second form of power. It's likely that your community, like many, is currently run by its founders, people who are successful leaders because they enforce rules that people want to follow anyway--people have voted them into power with their feet (if they didn't like you as a leader, they would leave). But what happens to the community when you leave or die? Often a member of the community steps up to take the reins, and while that person might understand the goals of the organization, they might not understand how to implement those goals, especially when implementing those goals requires setting aside their own basic human urges and ego. Almost no organization survives the first few changes of leadership in a positive form. You may think you're okay with this, that your organization can end with you, but keep in mind that it may live on and cause more damage than it ever did good. The solution is to create rules which limit your own power and give the community the ability to enforce those rules on you. That way your community has the power to survive a transition of power.

by soyiuz 10y ago

m3rc 10y ago

It's kind of funny looking back on the decision making process to get to that point. Like now, obviously, of course you need these sort of rules for a communal space, just the way it's important not to burn incense or do crappy food shit wen you're living with a roommate. But when you go to make something new like a hackerspace, it's so easy to get tricked into just thinking "Rules are bad! I'm sure people will work things out on their own if we just foster a space conducive to collaboration!"

jdietrich 10y ago

>We've learned that a lack of structure is actually quite oppressive and can lead to conflict. Jo Freedman wrote a now-legendary essay on exactly that issue in 1970. She was writing about her experiences in the women's liberation movement, but her essay is essential reading for anyone aspiring to run an organisation in a non-hierarchical manner. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

squeed 10y ago
Wow, what an amazing article. I wish I'd read this a decade ago.

devishard 10y ago

There are two levels to power that I've identified in anti-authoritarian groups. The first is the making and enforcement of the rules, and the second is the meta-game in which people get into positions of making our enforcing rules. It sounds like your community has figured out the first kind of power somewhat, but I urge you to consider carefully the second form of power. It's likely that your community, like many, is currently run by its founders, people who are successful leaders because they enforce rules that people want to follow anyway--people have voted them into power with their feet (if they didn't like you as a leader, they would leave). But what happens to the community when you leave or die? Often a member of the community steps up to take the reins, and while that person might understand the goals of the organization, they might not understand how to implement those goals, especially when implementing those goals requires setting aside their own basic human urges and ego. Almost no organization survives the first few changes of leadership in a positive form. You may think you're okay with this, that your organization can end with you, but keep in mind that it may live on and cause more damage than it ever did good. The solution is to create rules which limit your own power and give the community the ability to enforce those rules on you. That way your community has the power to survive a transition of power.