As SLMS grows, my sense is that we need a clearer People / HR volunteer role. Not corporate HR and not another layer of bureaucracy but someone members can go to when something feels unclear, difficult or uncomfortable.
This could include helping with conflict resolution between areas/techs/members, facilitating clearer communication, improving onboarding, helping with conduct/expectations and making sure difficult conversations are handled fairly and calmly before they escalate.
This activities are normally done by directors but as SLMS has now 700 members, the directors are already carrying a lot: member growth, P&L, new location, infrastructure, administration, safety, compliance and the general running of the space.
I’ve the experience and I can step in to take this role if members feel that would be useful. At the same time, I’m not claiming it as mine. If someone else feels they would be well placed to do this or would like to put themselves forward, please do. I’d welcome that. For me, the real question is not who should do it but whether SLMS needs this kind of role at all.
Before bringing this topic to the next members’ meeting, I’d like to get a simple sense of how people feel about it.
SLMS would benefit from a dedicated People /HR role
SLMS does not need a dedicated People /HR role at this stage
I don’t disagree with the underlying point but find the idea of a HR / People volunteer within Makersapce problematic, and felt similar about the previous conduct policy being so HR forcused.
We are not staff, we are not employee’s and many members aren’t even regular volunteers in the space, so I think it’s problematic.
We have a welcome team, for navigating the space, what might be missing is a conduct team.
People role helps SLMS function better before things become serious… making sure people issues are not ignored, helping resolve conflicts, feeding back patterns to directors.
Conduct team, require a team and more effort, it usually deals with behaviour that may breach rules or expectations… It steps in when something has already become formal.
There has been of late a lot of posts made about this or that person being unhappy about something or other, telling people not to do X, Y or Z in a very direct and sharp way. The last one I read my first thought was when did this newest “Must not do” become a rule…
700 people is hard to manage on an ongoing basis and while yes we are not staff, volunteers and members do still need to be managed within an HR context.
As my daughter say “Clarity is kindness” and it makes for a happier family, one that is more likely to be on the same page to start with.
Hi, I think it makes sense to set a date to close the survey and crystallise the results. I’ll close it on Monday 4 May at midday, so please vote before then.
You could also call it a conduct person, and now it works, so I don’t really see this as an issue.
My issue is the HR focus on this proposal, not the existance
I do not agree, HR fundamentally doesn’t exist for the purposes we need.
HR teams exist to protect the organisation from the behaviour of people, not to help people get along and resolve differences.
HR policies are designed around employees doing contractually paid work.
I’m not keen on us continuing to push for an HR approach after the previous policy work took that approach and was never implemented.
Why are we voting on Discourse when we have a legally binding members meeting next week where we can discuss this, and explore the issues.
I find the wording of the poll problematic, because I don’t disagree with the underlying intention to find ways to support members, what I disagree with is the HR-ification of it.
Also, we have 1 non-member voting on this decision because of where it’s posted.
Finally I’d say I’m sorry if this feels overly negative, my experience of HR is they are not a positive force within organisations.
We can call it a people role. If I understood correctly, the concern is mainly about the wording rather than the function itself.
Regarding the vote on Discourse, I think it’s useful because it gives a sense of member interest in the topic, so that all sounds reasonable to me.
To actually put this into action, I don’t think it necessarily needs a members’ meeting discussion, as there are no costs involved and no governance changes required. It would mainly involve the directors checking in monthly with whoever takes on the role.
Ultimately, if I take the role, I imagine it as something lightweight and practical:
1 hour a week of open slots for members who want to talk through concerns or issues
1 hour a month with the directors to surface unresolved issues and share observations around people and community dynamics
A simple quarterly survey to measure changes in member sentiment over time
That said, if someone else wants to step into the role, I think they should shape it in the way they believe is most useful and motivating.
In volunteer organisations, I think it’s important to keep momentum by supporting and enabling streams of initiatives. The risk of blocking people or making them feel their contribution is unwanted, wasted or unrecognised, is that it can slowly create disengagement and alienation.
I’m wary of giving one person power to mediate conflicts.
My concern with most HR-style systems, where you have one person or team who manages conflict is: what happens if a member has conflict with the HR team?
In industry, HR exists to make sure the organisation wins conflicts. HR is designed so that you can challenge other employees, but you can’t easily challenge HR. I would also be concerned about importing that structure.
Ultimately I think the biggest problem to be solved with conflict is power dynamics. The danger zone is when someone with a small amount of power has conflict with someone with a lot of power. I think while well-intentioned in this case, centralising the power to resolve conflicts tends to inadvertently scare people away from challenging the power structure when they have a problem with it (even though it may make it easier to challenge other members who also have limited power).
Having a set of directors already kind of creates a dynamic like this, so it might be nice to have a parallel structure that can be used to raise issues.
Something seems to have gone wrong in the communication somewhere, which is unfortunate considering the initiative was intended to improve communication and support members.
Power to mediate conflicts: everyone has it and it’s very welcome for people to exercise it if the persons involved are asking for it: a friend, a member, a random person in the street, a mediator, anyone trusted.
Please let me know if something I’ve written sounds coercive, because I still read this concern as being more related to the term “HR” itself rather than the actual intent and objective being described.
That said, if members genuinely feel this creates a risk or threat to SLMS, then I agree it would make sense to pause.
I didn’t feel anything you wrote was coercive, or intended to create the dynamics I’m concerned about.
Mainly I’m worried that if a similar blueprint is used, we inadvertently create a situation where the weird power dynamics of industrial HR are replicated.
To be clear, I know your goal with the proposal is to empower members and help them work through issues. I think that’s a good goal.
I can sense that concern. I’m not exactly making life easier for myself by stepping into this role but my thinking was that it doesn’t make much sense to propose something if I’m not also willing to invest my own time and be accountable for it. If anything, I’d be guinea pig number one. I know that people-related roles can become uncomfortable very quickly.
If the starting point already feels unwelcome, there’s not much reason to voluntarily put myself into something like this, so let’s see if more comments or votes come through.
I also think the fact this is a volunteer role removes a lot of the usual concerns around power, authority, hierarchy and enforcement. There’s no contractual power, no disciplinary authority and no governance change being proposed. The intention is support, listening and helping surface issues earlier before they become bigger problems.
Just to say, I think what you are proposing with some modifications would be extremely positive for Makerspace, I absolutely think for me it’s about the term HR.
If you’d like, I’m one of the leads at EMF Camp, which is a large festival of over 3,500 people with ~120 active volunteer leads, and they have a conduct team (which is sort of what I’m referencing) I’d be happy to introduce you and see if theres any opportunity to learn from them.
I do think we need something like this, name to be confirmed, I just struggle with the name, and I’m sorry that has made it feel unwelcome, I’d really support something like this, if it moves away from the commercial HR / people approach.
I also think this could benefit the makerspace, and I agree that adopting a formal HR structure from the corporate world would not feel right for the makerspace.
One thing I would like to suggest, especially around grievances or conflicts, is that there should be an option to choose between different people to speak to, rather than relying on a single point of contact. (I think we discussed this before, but I can’t find it.) That could help members feel more comfortable raising issues.
The role you are proposing could work well as a coordinator for this, but supported by a small group of volunteers who can help with conflict resolution when needed.
The results are inconclusive due to very low participation (around 4% of members): 27 members voted, 4 members commented and the directors have remained silent.
I’ve seen initiatives move forward within South London Makerspace with less consensus than this but personally I think this particular topic requires stronger momentum before moving ahead. Happy to answer any questions during the member meeting.
For now, my next step is simply to build a clearer picture of the situation. I’m preparing a short question survey to take a quarterly pulse of the SLMS community (ideally including some of the silent voices as well).
fwiw, at my dojo as we’re formalizing structures to take burden off of the instructor, a woman has taken the “Safeguarding Officer” role, which is a commonly used term in the UK I’ve found. Primary function is to have a specific person that issues can be raised with outside of the directors. I know words matter, so perhaps this is a term that could apply to what we need. Not always about mediating a specific conflict, but could be the type of person an average member could go to if they feel uncomfortable bringing something up.
The feedback from the UK Hackspace Foundation Telegram chat was that they use “Community Managers” and “Project Designers” which seem similar to our Techs.
Hey I just want to point of that safeguarding lead and designated safeguarding officer might not be the right names for the role that’s being described on this thread. They are specific terms about making sure an organization is legally compliant with statuatory duties to protect vulnerable people (children and vulnerable adults only) from harm. Usually this involves things like establishing safeguarding procedures, signposting, and escalating safeguarding concerns if they come up. For example, raising concerns if a vulnerable adult has disclosed that they’re experiencing abuse outside of the makerspace.
So safeguarding leads need a good understanding of UK safeguarding guidance + assessing capacity. They can also face legal problems if something goes wrong because they become responsible for the organization’s safeguarding compliance.
I’m not trying to pick problems, I think your contribution was helpful, i just want people to be aware that it would come with legal safeguarding obligations rather than being a conflict resolution or mediation focused role.
and more effort, it usually deals with behaviour that may breach rules or expectations… It steps in when something has already become formal.