1,496
edits
User:Martind: Difference between revisions
From London Hackspace Wiki
→Subgroups as Growth Mechanism
(→Misc) |
|||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
** 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. | ||
I'm particularly curious about means of federating "maintenance work" that aren't super-formal (e.g. without explicit commitments/requirements/ownership claims), because: | |||
* we've not actually had *that* many subgroups that lasted more than a few months; the ones that do often have rotating membership and little continuity. That's in the very nature of these informal activities. | |||
* don't want to prevent subgroup growth by placing too many demands on them early | |||
* instead would simply like to rely on a subgroup's ability to come up with their own little maintenance rituals, e.g. a cleaning session after every meetup; and then have these rituals spread organically | |||
Etc. | |||
I think it's also useful to recognise that certain kinds of maintenance will be very hard to provide continuously; and to then ponder if that's the point where a) the org starts paying for a service or b) the org decides the activity is not worth supporting. | |||
=== Limits to Heterogeneity? === | === Limits to Heterogeneity? === | ||
