Organisation talk:Syn2cat

Members

Should we allow "personne physique" only or also "personne morale" ? The various associations would be a "personne morale" and their members would automatically be granted access to the hackerspace without paying an additional fee (See #Access to the Hackerspace). That would require the associations to pay a monthly or annual fee, depending on the number of their members and their level of involvement. --kwisatz 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC) I think we should allow "personne morale" especially if we are going to liaise with other HackerSpaces around the globe to give them Access to ours and us to their HackerSpace --steve

Administration

There was an alternate proposal for Art. 10 from Macfreak109 who suggested to have the board consist of members from the various member-associations, relative to the number of their members. But also to include syn2cat-only members.

So that in the end, I'd suggest to increase the maximum number of the board to 10 people (+2 speakers), having:

• Each associations has at least 1 seat, at most the number of seats equivalent to their percentage of the total members to MAY frequent the hackerspace.
• The delegates to the board by an association will have to be elected by that associations general assembly.
• The new delegates will become effective members of the board on the day of their election.

Example:

Association 1: 50 members = 61% of total members = 6 seats
Association 2: 12 members = 15% of total members = 2 seats
Association 3: 20 members = 24% of total members = 2 seats

The speakers can still only be elected from the syn2cat members to ensure that no association (of 200+ members) can abuse the hackerspace for its own purposes and exclude other associations.

I agree that this seems a bit complicated. So that another proposal would be to simply have 2 representatives from each association, no matter what their number of members and fill the remaining positions by hackerspace-only people.

The third proposal being to keep it as it is. Only that this wouldn't integrate the various associations as much in the decision making process.

While unlikely, the scheme would break if there's more associations than seats. Also, how likely do you think it will be for members of syn2cat to not be members of an association using the facilities? --Tschew 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could always increase the number of seats ;) The likeliness depends on whether we're able to create associations for those not member of another association. I think of the people that should become the graffitiresearchlab group. Anyway, does it matter if they're members of multiple associations? Maybe in respect to the membership fee, true. --kwisatz 18:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, and I'm not trying to be pedantic here, just pragmatic. How do you determine which members of a given association MAY frequent the hackerspace? ie, how are you going to calculate the percentages in practice. --Tschew 19:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Access to the Hackerspace

This might be more of an issue for the internal regulations... but how do we handle access to the hackerspace? This question is also linked to the fees somewhat. Other Hackerspaces have a monthly fee of €20 to €25. Do we charge associations if they want to hold a venue or not? --kwisatz 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Article 3 - contradictory:

 Art. 3. L'association est politiquement neutre. Elle s'engage à offrir son expertise et sa fonction consultative à tout organe ou parti
politique à condition que l'idéologie de celui-ci ne conteste les intérêts de l'association et la neutralité de l'association soit conservée.
L'accaparement des événements organisés par l'association ou par ses proches pour des raisons politiques n'est pas permise.

- either we're neutral, or not, we can't be both at the same time. Political neutrality would also mean that we can't use the hackerspace as a platform for issues that mean a lot to us: privacy/data-retention, DRM etc. Of course, if you remove the last clause, various associations could well use the facilities of the hackerspace for these purposes (eg. C3L) --Tschew 09:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence is contradictory or badly written. But the idea behind this was to keep parties from claiming our activities for their purpose. I.e. the left wing party from claiming that, if we're against surveillance, we must be left wing or the right wing from supporting their claims with our actions against.. whatever. That shouldn't mean that we can't act politically, if you understand politics as the act of operating in society, not of making policy or supporting party politics. --kwisatz 10:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand the meaning of the second part (my apologies), but that still doesn't justify the first part about confliciting ideologies. --Tschew 18:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Article 10

Separate votes for male and female representatives? How is this proposition justified? --Tschew 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To make absolutely sure that there's one speaker of each gender. If there was but one female candidate for the speaker position, she would be automatically elected. --kwisatz 10:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be justified. Representatives will not decide on issues that are gender-relevant. (at least, my intellect is too limited to imagine any such issue) I therefore request a permanent seat on the board as the only member to represent naturalised Poles. ;) --Tschew 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can live with a gender transformation ;) No, seriously, the intent is to proactively demonstrate to the outside world, that we're at least trying not to be a bunch of male nerds and that we're very happy with female involvement. In the end, this is only a proposal and we needn't put that in if nobody likes it. --kwisatz 18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In my personal opinion proposals like these demonstrate to the outside world that we consider women to still need help to be elected anywhere. (which we don't! at least i don't)--Tschew 18:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well as far as I see it, they do. Well, they should get that support on another level, though, but that is another topic. We'll leave that section out then, unless somebody else absolutely wants to see it in.

Fees

Ok here we go, maybe one of the more difficult topics but we need to address it:

Students: 21€ per Month
Unemployed: 21€ per Month
Workers: 42€ per Month
UserGroups: joint Fee xyz€ per Month
Sponsorships: Different Packages: Silver, Gold, Platinum (Cathode/Resistor/Blue_LED or something more funky than the usual stuff)

42€/21€ per month, are you crazy?

Ok this might be what some of us think, but let me detail you why this is NOT that much and why we need it.

First of all these are a Proposal, so if you think it needs to be more OR less please tell us but explain Why.

On why 42€/21€ are not much at all

As you all know what the HackerSpace is about let me reiterate what Benefits you really get out of it.

You get Hands on fun with a lot of Tech stuff that on it own costs a Fortune but together we financed it as a group and everyone can share.

• We have a lot of Magazine_subscriptions
• A rather impressive book library
• Free Internet!
• Free Heating, Free Seats
• A strong community
• Interesting People
• Are theoretically in the City Centre

etc etc

Another argument would be the Expenses take a good look at the different numbers.

So if we break it up, Students pay 5.25€ per Week (less than a Euro per day!) (252€ yearly)

Workers 10.5€ per week (504€ Yearly)

For the break even we would need A LOT of members so we kind of rely on donations and maybe on other sources of revenue.

I kindly ask you for your thoughts.

• [History↑]

Search terms: 

Sorting order: last modified first newest threads first oldest threads first

You cannot post new threads to this discussion page because it has been protected from new threads.

There are no threads on this page yet.