1,496
edits
User:Martind: Difference between revisions
From London Hackspace Wiki
→Managing Growth
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
(This section is still new, will be refined over time.) | (This section is still new, will be refined over time.) | ||
=== Mistakes as Precondition for Learning === | === Mistakes as Precondition for Learning === | ||
| Line 85: | Line 73: | ||
I think it's important to make mistakes, and to allow newcomers to "screw up". These are often key steps in the long process of becoming familiar with our culture, and there's no need to shout at people for having transgressed once. Put your rule hammer away! | I think it's important to make mistakes, and to allow newcomers to "screw up". These are often key steps in the long process of becoming familiar with our culture, and there's no need to shout at people for having transgressed once. Put your rule hammer away! | ||
Instead a perceived "transgression" should be an opportunity for a conversation; a chance to provide context, to explain our expectations, to convert ("de-program") a newcomer. | Instead a perceived "transgression" should be an opportunity for a conversation; a chance to provide context, to explain our expectations, to convert ("de-program") a newcomer. And also an opportunity to realise that maybe it was all a mis-understanding. | ||
So I'm thinking… | So I'm thinking… | ||
* Maybe there should be a cost to rule hammer use: "don't moderate without explaining" | * Maybe there should be a cost to rule hammer use: "don't moderate without explaining" | ||
(I my personal opinion you'd be actively harming community renewal by being overly aggressive. You scare away newcomers by reinforcing the (wrong) notion that this is an old-boys club of people who are happy enough with what they have, will gladly take your money, but don't really want to share.) | |||
=== Subgroups as Growth Mechanism === | === Subgroups as Growth Mechanism === | ||
I'm quite interested in moving towards a "federated/syndicated" model of operations: to foster the formation of subgroups (meetups, special-interest groups, regular workshops, …) within the LHS that manage their own space/resources. This doesn't have to be very formal. | |||
* It has become harder to get to know people as the org grows, and as our physical space expands. | * It has become harder to get to know people as the org grows, and as our physical space expands. Topical group settings attract newcomers, and topical meetings/workshops/mailing lists may make for a less daunting introduction to the LHS. | ||
* It has become harder to uphold our "everyone's in charge" governance model: with growth (and age) comes a sense of a loss of ownership. It stops being "your" space, and becomes a space owned and managed by an invisible group of hundreds, most of whom you'll never meet. | * It has become harder to uphold our "everyone's in charge" governance model: with growth (and age) comes a sense of a loss of ownership. It stops being "your" space, and becomes a space owned and managed by an invisible group of hundreds, most of whom you'll never meet. | ||
** I'm interested in fostering a stronger culture of group-maintained infrastructure, as opposed to our previous "we all are responsible" (i.e., nobody feels responsible) model. | ** I'm interested in fostering a stronger culture of group-maintained infrastructure, as opposed to our previous "we all are responsible" (i.e., nobody feels responsible) model. | ||
** Subgroups can be interested in keeping particular infrastructure in a working state, and can develop the skills/resources to maintain it. | ** Subgroups can be interested in keeping particular infrastructure in a working state, and can develop the skills/resources to maintain it. | ||
=== | === Limits to Heterogeneity? === | ||
Atm there's an implicit assumption that the LHS is a space to practice a particular shared culture (hacker/maker/open source/sharing/...) As we grow more newcomers have not been exposed to this culture. (These are: short-term users, newcomers, purely self-interested users, ...) | |||
* I think there's great value in building safe teaching spaces to learn the culture; pledge drives and social nights work well I think, and I'm still hoping the Hack the Space Day will become more popular | |||
* but of course: can't expect that everyone *wants* to learn the culture. | |||
There's an open question in this: how do we want to handle with people who don't want to learn the culture? (Because they don't know better, haven't learned yet; or because they disagree/refuse) | |||
* do we still want to support them? | |||
* | * is our (limited) energy best spent on converting them? | ||
* | * are there systematic means of still letting them interact in productive ways, somehow channeling their self-interest into things that benefit the org? | ||
* when do they become a liability? | |||
=== Misc === | === Misc === | ||
(Not sure yet if this is actually important.) | |||
How can we address the concerns of newcomers when considering "policy" changes, e.g. when refining our code of conduct? They're (almost by definition) never around when we discuss such fundamental matters! | How can we address the concerns of newcomers when considering "policy" changes, e.g. when refining our code of conduct? They're (almost by definition) never around when we discuss such fundamental matters! | ||
| Line 111: | Line 108: | ||
* or even panels (invited groups of newcomers) when discussing policy changes | * or even panels (invited groups of newcomers) when discussing policy changes | ||
* of course that's hard to reconcile with our very informal approach to policy-making... | * of course that's hard to reconcile with our very informal approach to policy-making... | ||
=== Recommended Reading === | |||
* "[http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline]". A great discussion of Wikipedia's struggle to deal with growth and simultaneously retain new users. The similarities to LHS growth patterns are striking: | |||
** Automated reversion tools help reduce spam, but users employing them on newcomers' edits don't often explain why edits are reverted, which alienates new people. (LHS: the "rule hammer" and "ban hammer") | |||
** there's a great barrier to entry when formulating policy changes, hard for newcomers to engage, and newcomer considerations are consequently not included well | |||
* "[https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf The (In)compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community]" (PDF), simulations suggest group diversity is in conflict with group cohesion -- another argument for forming interest groups within large diverse communities to maintain overall cohesion ([http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/ commentary]) | |||
== Spc Mgmt == | == Spc Mgmt == | ||
