Who are our members?

[sofer]

The proposal (see discussion below):

That we have the following events, meetings and groups to which all current students, alumni and mentors be invited.

1. A graduation party three times a year;
2. Separate working groups for running the space, running each course; and developing the curriculum (and other groups, as necessary) that can meet as and when each group deems necessary;
3. A bimonthly (i.e. every two months) business meeting;
4. An AGM (which will replace one of the business meetings).

If we want a formal legal definition of a member (I am not sure on this point--but the concept of a "member" is in our Articles), then perhaps anyone who comes to at least four of the business meetings in any one year and who is an active contributor to one of the working groups can be treated as a member for the purposes of the Articles until the next AGM.

---

CIC36 Documentation: our activities

• Providing programmes of study for the general public Benefit: By helping develop the knowledge and skills of the general population.
• Providing a place of learning and work for our members Benefit: By providing a convivial place where our members can study and work together and contribute to our study programmes; by encouraging continuing support and collaboration between students of our study programmes and our members.

Our company documentation is clear that we are a membership-based organisation, it is clear about what we are setting out to provide to our membership, and it hints at what we want from them in return. However, it does not say anything about who our members are. Our first attempt at defining our membership as all students, alumni and mentors who wish to be members has not been wholly successful.

Has anyone who was around in the first half of this year got views on why our first attempts at governance were sub-optimal and has anyone got views on how we might redefine either the membership or our modus operandi to do a better job of it next time?

[NataliaLKB]

Our first attempt at defining our membership as all students, alumni and mentors who wish to be members has not been wholly successful.

What has not been successful? I still consider all our students current and previous as well as all the many members we have to be part of FAC. Is that not the case anymore?

Certainly it feels, just like we discussed back in January, we need to have two tiers of members. Then we went with "Active" and "Inactive". I still like that idea, as active members should have much more say over important decisions FAC makes day to day. Inactive members are just as important though. They are the people out in the world, networking, being successful, who spread the word of FAC when they can. Its the many people who continue to support the organisation anyway they can.

[sofer]

@NataliaLKB good questions.

What's been less successful? I think it is fair to say that the attempts at co-operative management of the space have so far been not wholly successful. It is very hard to run a space co-operatively when the turnover of personnel is so rapid (only 5 of us have been in the space since before May).

Are alumni not part of FAC? Categorically, I hope that students past and present would want to feel part of FAC.

The "active" and "inactive" distinction may still make sense, but I wonder where the line should be drawn. I am not sure that it is sensible for current students to, as you say, "have much more say over important decisions " than others. FAC3 is unusual, in that respect, because you were the founding cohort. Subsequent cohorts seem to have a different relationship with the space. No less willing to get involved, but perhaps less likely to be looking for the added responsibility of getting involved in management decisions.

Another organisation I am involved in has the distinction of full members who vote at the AGM and associate members, who don't. We could perhaps have something like that, but we might need to think a bit more carefully about how that distinction is drawn.

[NataliaLKB]

I think it is fair to say that the attempts at co-operative management of the space have so far been not wholly successful

Completely agree with this. As mentioned in a previous conversation, we have never really run as a co-operative anyway. Also, it is just impossible with the number of people involved in the organisation.

Are alumni not part of FAC?

I would say they should be, but I imagine some people are not sure and it may be very beneficial to make it explicit either way.

The "active" and "inactive" distinction may still make sense, but I wonder where the line should be drawn...

This really needs a bigger discussion, as that is so hard to define!! Many ideas have been mentioned in the past year. I definitely think being in the space full time/semi full time is more and more relevant as we get a larger alumni population. That might just be my thinking though.

I like the sounds of full members and associate members. Shall we put it on the agenda? I can make a real effort to attend the business meeting this week if it makes sense for me to be there :smile:. I may have to cut out early though as I do have a morning meeting.

[sofer]

@NataliaLKB you are always welcome :-)

One good reason to have meetings at 9am is so that it might be possible (although not easy) for people like you to make it.

Another possibility is to gather more information and opinions, come up with some clear options and then discuss it together, perhaps one evening in January. Hopefully, more people will pitch in before then...

[rub1e]

Re Members:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James, 2:14-17

[nelsonic]

@rub1e what happened to

[rub1e]

@nelsonic that sort of attitude leads to my Bulgarian great-aunt giving me a pear-shaped nutcracker for my 11th birthday. Several years later, I tried to crack some walnuts with it and it broke.

[rub1e]

Back to business.

Not a full-blown opinion, but a talking point:

If we take a solely active/non-active split, I worry about losing the opinions of veterans like @NataliaLKB - the Village Elders, if you will.

I wonder if it might be worth exploring a system inspired by our bicameral Parliament - with decision-making broadly the responsibility of those actively in the space, but with scrutiny from a group of elected or appointed veterans.

[NataliaLKB]

At the meeting today we discussed:

• Having at least two tiers of members.
• One of the tiers (inactive or associate) simply being involved in the community, but neither has a responsibility in the space, nor voting power.
• The other tier (active or full) has voting rights, but also responsibility in the space. This needs to be clearly defined but thoughts included were:
  • Needed to help out downstairs teaching/coaching/mentoring for at least a week every cohort (I think this one is really important)
  • A number of hours dedicated to the space/FAC outside of teaching (this needs to be discussed further. It may not be necessary)
• Possible exceptions to this, or a third category as @rub1e has suggested
• These rules need to be public possibly in this repo
• Members are decided by existing members or, for now, the directors

From other people in the meeting this morning, is there anything I missed? What do people think about this?

[sofer]

@NataliaLKB I think you have captured most of it.

And @rub1e I think you make a good point about losing the wisdom of our more experienced alumni.

I have had another think about this since Monday, and it might be helpful to think of six overlapping groups who contribute something back to FAC:

Group 1: Current students, who are contributing to the space by helping each other, and running coding meetups.

Group 2: Recent graduates who are contributing back to the space by running the next FAC programme.

Group 3: People who have been in the space for longer and are contributing some of their earnings (or perhaps desk rental) back into the space.

Group 4: People who are not just contributing some of their earnings, but are providing work to FAC alumni.

Group 5: People who are taking responsibility for developing and documenting the FAC curriculum.

Group 6: everyone else, who may be contributing in different ways, perhaps by running the occasional workshop or contributing curriculum materials or persuading their colleagues to hire us.

I am not sure that that these groups need to all meet together except to celebrate the graduation of each new FAC cohort, for quarterly business meetings, and for an awayday once a year or so.

Less frequent general meetings and more specific working groups would make it easier for the "membership" to self select, regardless of whether they were in the space every day or not.

[NataliaLKB]

@sofer I really like this idea.

So anyone who fits into any one of these groups would be a member?

[rub1e]

What's the actual idea/proposal though?

[sofer]

The proposal:

1. That we have a graduation party three times a year to which everyone in groups 1-6 are invited;
2. That we have separate working groups for running the space, running the course; and developing the curriculum, that can meet as and when they deem necessary;
3. That we have a quarterly business meeting to which everyone in groups 1-6 is invited;
4. That one of those four quarterly meetings be treated as the AGM.

If we want a formal legal definition of a member (I am not sure on this point--but the concept of a "member" is in our Articles), then perhaps anyone who comes to at least three of the quarterly meetings in any one year and who is an active contributor to one of the working groups can be treated as a "member" for the purposes of the Articles until the next AGM.

[rub1e]

yeah that's looking good.

1 - I like that you have put the parties first. 2 - I like this, but the meeting groups will need management and supervision to ensure they don't fizzle out. How will we decide who is part of which group? 3 - nice 4 - really essential, love it. We should beg a free venue off someone and make this the big deal it should be

Re members, I would either drop the word member, or give it a formal definition. I think it's important for people to know their responsibilities and their rights

[sofer]

Let me tweak my earlier suggestion:

1. That we have a bimonthly business meeting to which everyone in groups 1-6 is invited

Once every two months probably fits better with our course schedule. We can meet once half-way through a course and once at the end.

[iteles]

Suggestion: Add the current proposal at the top of the issue (we can use an <hr/> to separate it from the original first comment) so people don't have to go hunting for it when we point them in this direction for comment

[sofer]

@iteles done.