Organisation/New Articles (2010): Difference between revisions
From London Hackspace Wiki
Undo revision 397 by BashLame (Talk)
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
There are two paths an organization like us can go down for the purposes of decision-making: either the decisions are ultimately made by the board, or they are ultimately made through consensus of all the members. Hacker spaces around the world are roughly split between these two mechanisms of governance. [https://www.noisebridge.net Noisebridge] is a successful example of consensus governance. | There are two paths an organization like us can go down for the purposes of decision-making: either the decisions are ultimately made by the board, or they are ultimately made through consensus of all the members. Hacker spaces around the world are roughly split between these two mechanisms of governance. [https://www.noisebridge.net Noisebridge] is a successful example of consensus governance. | ||
We have decided to go for a board governance mechanism. Primarily this is because we want to make it as easy to become a | We have decided to go for a board governance mechanism. Primarily this is because we want to make it as easy to become a member as possible (because we need peoples' money and involvement). A consensus governance mechanism would make it very easy for new members to influence the organization quickly, in potentially undesirable ways. Noisebridge handles this by having a 2-month probation/approval process for new members. We don't want this yet. | ||
We also feel that, at this early stage, it's probably not in the best interest of the space to spend a lot of time getting consensus decisions. | We also feel that, at this early stage, it's probably not in the best interest of the space to spend a lot of time getting consensus decisions. | ||
