Mission Statement

Discussion
1

South London Makerspace is a community dedicated to sharing space, skills and resources for making things.

Mutuality
We achieve together what we couldn’t do alone. We practice this at the scale of buildings – together we put down for an industrial lease and created a beautiful workshop – and in our individual projects, sharing skills and fostering collaboration.

Inclusivity
We believe in a future where making is accessible to more people, and better things happen because of that. To that end, we firmly promote inclusivity in our membership, and aim to provide a physical space and social culture welcoming to others.

Design
We value process as well as outcome, and so design as much as hack. This should be seen in the space we build, where aesthetics and practicality can be seen as proud partners.

1 Like
2

There are a few different texts around and this is covered in those but perhaps not in any one place.

3

So – which texts, where?

I can think of –

There’s the aims of the legal company, as defined in those documents.

There’s what’s been written on the website, flyers, etc.

There’s the mega-threads about values, rules, etc.

The definitive document so far would be –
http://southlondonmakerspace.org/about/

On discourse, the nearest I can find is –
Promotional Materials and Rules category.

@pip As you might expect, this is a topic with some history, whose urgency seems to come and go.

4

It really is important, but because it doesn’t directly result in making things, it tends to get sidelined.

I have to say though, I think the unwritten version of this - ie. the culture and norms that people practice in the space - is already doing very well. A new member said to me the other day that LHS is actually easier to get to, but they chose to join us because we’re “more friendly.”

That’s mission accomplished in my books :smiley:

4 Likes
5

@tomnewsom Yes, yes and yes. And that’s a nice anecdote to hear.

The action – I think? – is to consolidate what we have and put it somewhere. And a test could be whether it helps guide the great wall of Makerspace decision making.

1 Like
6

Thanks @tobyspark for digging those out.

Yes, it’s absolutely about the culture you experience and become a part of in the space, a mission/values statement would be meaningless without that.

But to distill that spirit into a few sentences which we can occasionally measure ourselves against could be invaluable.

7

If it’s just a few sentences, then we pretty much have that already?

I like the model we tried to adopt for values, with a short and aspirational ‘public’ statement and rules that operationalise that as necessary. If we’re having this discussion now it’s probably evidence that we haven’t implemented that well enough (ie. slms.org and discourse?) and/or that it could do with vision/mission/goals in there too.

And – mea culpa, I’m totally complicit in having wavering energies for this.

8

Yes I think next action would be to consolidate About page and this Mission Statement which I guess is pretty much there if no one has any edits (I have a couple in mind, I’m a stickler for a well written sentence.) - doesn’t need to be a big deal, just useful as a guiding principles, for grants etc and instil a bit of ambition :smile: Is indeed outward and upward facing.

I’ll tidy up the text over next few days. There is also the homepage text “South London Makerspace is a non-profit, social community workshop. If you want to make it, we’ve got the space. All members have a say in how the space is run, and get full access to the space and all its facilities.” banging.

@unknowndomain - the ‘Readmore’ link underneath goes to http://southlondonmakerspace.org/who-we-are/ which is page not found.

I will also start the Phase II brief post tomorrow (had to work late today), unless someone is willing to take up the mantle? Just need a wiki post with some headings and example bullet points.

9

Fixed

10

I have made deep cuts to the statement (you can see the edit history by clicking the orange pencil)

I feel this statement should be a very pure distillation of what we are. If it can’t be expressed in a few declarative sentences, it’s probably not important enough. I’ve also removed language like “It is our aim to” and replaced it with language like “We will”

1 Like
11

As someone who needs something to kick against , i feel excluded and oppressed by this mission statement…

Please note that this is a joke

3 Likes
12

For my money the stuff about being “a democratic adhocracy” jars. There’s having a democracy - where things are run by everybody - and there’s having an adhocracy - where someone has decided beforehand how everyone will run things. But if it’s a democracy, shouldn’t everyone decide that? It seems rather un-adhocratic to state this up-front.

The bit about treating other members kindly probably belongs under the first heading.

There seems to be a distinction between “the legal company” (the thing that accepts our money each month) and the “makerspace” - (the workshop and its working practices) - & presumably therefore between the company’s directors & the members of the makerspace. Perhaps the distinction is akin to a company and the service the company offers. But anyway, I feel it would be useful to have those roles and relationships clarified briefly. Maybe something like: “legally-speaking, the makerspace is [name of company] Limited, whose directors (whom we call ‘trustees’) are responsible for its finances and contractual commitments. Trustees serve for [period of service] and are elected [annually/every other year/whatever it is]”

13

also would suggest omitting “to be debated and acted upon.” Yes all ideas should be welcomed; no not all ideas should be acted on. Surely in a pithy mission statement it’s enough to say that ideas are welcome and encouraged, without also saying that they will be debated and acted upon?

As it happens, in my admittedly brief experience of this makerspace, it’s not actually true that all ideas are welcomed and encouraged. There are distinct limits which it’s quite easy to infringe.

There’s also that bit of research that showed that companies without mission statements were more successful than those that had them.

14

I am not keen on labels like Adhocracy and Democracy because it means I have to go and research what they actually mean and what the difference is.

I prefer a description of what the format of our structure is in the text…

Makerspace as it stands today has members that the directors have open communications with, and put most decisions to before proceeding to make a final decision which is what we do… There is no period of service, and no elections.

Currently the reason Makerspace works in this extremely undemocratic structure we have is because the directors who are >50% the founders of the organisation have a vision to create a flat hierarchy where we make decisions collectively. The directors see this as our company (members included) not their company (members excluded), however at present we’ve not gotten our articles of association and day to day running of the organisation into a situation where it would be wise to run the company with a legally enforced democracy or other format.

So, basically (in a simplified format) the way I see it is:

  1. An issue comes up to be discussed, example: we need lighting in the space and there isn’t any for X reason.
  2. If it is a minor issue such as a blown light bulb a member can resolve the issue and payment is authorised by a director, or some such variance.
  3. If it is a major issue: for example an electrical fault, the directors talk about it amongst themselves and come to a conclusion to get an electrician to come fix it.
  4. If the decision has a major impact to the members: such as the fact there is no lighting and we need to decide what type of lighting to fit, how much to spend, what the requirements are for such lighting, we talk to the members for their suggestions, views, opinions etc…
  5. The directors may propose a solution collectively or individually as members of what they feel is the right solution if at all, and the discussion allows us to convince each other of one another’s perspectives.
  6. The final decision is hopefully reached by discussion, otherwise the directors will make a decision.

This isn’t a perfect example, but the idea is to illustrate that we don’t ask everyone every time something needs to happen, however if it has an impact such as floor gate, wall gate, shutter gate, and other such gates… Then we’ll consult the members, and usually we come to a conclusion, however if there is a particular solution proposed such as floorgate with the ramp option, this is ruled out because it is insane to build a ramp 1.5M wide by 8M long or what ever we discussed.

Part of the problem we’ve had of late is that we are conducting these conversations in multiple formats with different participants present and often in Discourse where there is a tendency for missed messages, confusion and internet enthusiasm to take place. You also have different people who care about different things, I for example really feel passionately about the aesthetic of the space.

Also as we are currently making a lot of decisions collectively about the structure of the space there is a lot more to talk about than when the space is just operating day to day.

I think we need to have formal steering meetings to discuss what we want in a personal manner, that could be a Google Hangout, or Skype etc… or it could be in the space.

My biggest concern has been the subtext of a few conversations lately which is that questioning the motives of the trustees/directors.

Put simply there are two realities:

  1. Legally we are in charge of this company and make all decisions, there is no requirement for us to consult with the members. However they can kick us out if there is need to.
  2. In reality we defer almost everything to the members only intervening when absolutely necessary, or to avoid pointless bureaucracy over minor decisions.

Finally, if the directors of this company wanted to be dictators and ignore everyone we could have set up a different structure such as a company limited by share, and made only the directors shareholders, or even with our existing structure we could have made the members non legal members, i.e. customers.

We don’t want to create a space where we are in charge and the members are customers, we want to create a community where people feel empowered to make decisions, but there are certain realities to that, which is that just because a couple people said they want a workshop that takes up 50% of the space doesn’t mean that this is the right thing for the Makerspace as a whole, nor does it mean that everyone else expressed a view…

There are certain decisions being shouted quite vocally by various parties that need to be listened to but, ze who shouts the loudest does not necessarily win the argument, nor does the person who is doing the work get more of a say than anyone else. The only situation where the directors and trustees should really be treated with any higher significance is where there is a financial, legal, or safety question over the proposed resolution… A current example of that is the question over building regulations and rooms inside other rooms.

Tl;dr: The directors/founders of this organization do effectively have ultimate say over the organisation, but we’re nice people and we want what is best of the organisation. We listen to everyone and make decisions based on this, the exception to this is when there is a financial, legal or safety concern. Let’s stop using online places to make complex decisions and have steering group meetings on these subjects online or in the space.

3 Likes
15

Great read Tom, really useful and thorough, I think we should edit it and have it some where as a ‘how it works’ bit, or distill into some Rules. (I hope you don’t think I’m questioning your motivations)

Firstly I’ll say I think this mission statement thread has / is becoming a rules / functioning thread - I think it’s important to get distinctions, I think what Tom wrote is why.

To get there I’ll reiterate / clarify what I’m interested in / hoping to achieve, which in essence is simple problem solving - a decision making process. That’s basically it. Steering group meetings are probably the way to go though so I will encourage that. I was just trying to put in place something that would let people come to an agreement without the endless forum discussions.

As Tom has pointed out though the current system works to a point, - people can get the small things done without too much fuss, big things get decided collectively.

Being one of those liberal lefty types I’m interested in collective decisions. As Tom’s post clarifies, there’s always more layers to these things (invested interests, power, suspicion) but I think it’s really great it all got laid out there and I think that ultimately the trustees have final say is not at all a bad thing, be upfront and public about it, if it’s a benevolent dictatorship (directorship is probably the better word) then say so, but if you say it in a way that makes people understand just how massively benevolent you are then they can choose to get involved or not, in full knowledge - this is where the about page / mission statement comes in, as is all ready the case pretty much. People just want to know where they stand and what the system is.

Plus my feeling is that the Mission Statement (the what and why) shouldn’t sound anything like the Rules (the who and how) because when people disagree with the Rules, they can point at the Mission statement and hold the rules accountable.

Same with a design brief and a design solution.

My proposal was :
A clearly written mission statement - the aims and beliefs of the community.
A design brief creation process that involved everyone, that should imbibe the spirit of the Mission Statement, giving a concrete brief to which then technical solutions could be found.

I think this is still on course, some endorsements and no major objections apart from maybe a preference for steering group meetings?

To move this on I think we should put a deadline on the Mission Statement - say this time next week? And, agree on a final editor or two to go through the text together, text suffers from too many cooks. It will obviously always be an ongoing task, but maybe reviewed periodically, as peoples interest can’t / doesn’t hold on it constantly.

My input on the comments and edits -

good to make it short and sweet but I think you can afford to have some more explanation. This document should set out your aims - first sentence of each paragraph, then the rest of the paragraph I think offers more up on why this is important, so people can see what motivates the ideal/aim set out and hopefully relate but maybe answer some of the questions people might have - why must it be inclusive, do they mean racially? etc etc…

Some of the syntax I find confusing, is a social community workshop a community workshop you can be chatty and sociable in or is it workshop for a social community as opposed to a workshop for a commercial community? Also I think the word social is problematic, become kind of meaningless but accept that might just be me.
“Makerspace must feel inclusive” - one, word must is a bit forceful, like saying “You must have fun, now!” also underneath then says “should feel inclusive”.

Like I said, a stickler for a well written sentence.

I think if more then a couple of people are unhappy about democratic adhocracy then drop it, was just trying it out. I suppose most people understand that makerspaces are not companies or government agencies and thus pretty horizontal structurally. Still, any good phrase which people will just ‘get’?

NB I would be interested to know if people see makerspaces as simply a place to get access to tools, or something more? They get a lot of hype but mostly from what I’ve seen at Nottinghack and London Hack space, it’s the former. Certainly thats a large part of my motivation. South London Maker Space feels potentially more, though that might be just ‘more makery’ than say more a challenge the capitalistic hegemony. I dig the fairy lights.

PS would love to see the research on why companies without mission statements did better

PPS sorry it’s another mammoth post, looks like I get internet enthusiasm as much as the next person…

16

Thanks Pip, I am not going to admit to fully following the post entirely, either because it’s late or because I am following, however…

I agree we need a deadline and I think fundamentally we all see this transitioning eventually to a elected directors/trustees system, but right now I think we get a lot of value from having a group of people in charge that have a vision for the space and guide it’s decision making. A bit like a government, you elect people for their policies, rather than voting on each issue, however people get a say through their local MP…

I see that trustees canvas the membership and make decisions during this setup phase, and when we finally get round to writing a constitution and new articles we write it so that it is an elected directorship system.

I have no interest in being the only guy sat in a empty railway arch that looks like an iPhone according to someone the other day!

17

Personally, I lean more towards a “vote on everything” model (within reason!).
Or at least a “veto of the masses” style, which allows a popular vote to overrule or approve a decision.

But ultimately I’m a pragmatist. I didn’t get into this to experiment with political systems; I got into this to make things and help other people make things. So long as “helping people make things” is at the core of our “constitution” I’m not too fussed what form it takes.

1 Like
18

We just need a system that works.

And we are only going to make big disions now and then it would be unwise to bog us down with a system for copmlex enough to build the place and then find our self’s having endless committees on the toilet paper when the space is up and running.

I like the way it is . Not perfect but t trust it .although it may be s cufudal building the space it’s the right system to run the space .

We only need to build the wall once

19

Let’s not forget that the people and system that is in place has built a fantastic if only half finished space .

Lets not be to quick to criticise.

I might be quite vocal , and new but that is because i am just excited about being part of this wonderful thing called the south London make space.

:slight_smile:

20

Long term, I’d like to see Trustees serve for limited terms so that there is a continuous turnover. This means that a) we don’t end up reliant on a handful of people forever and b) we’re forced to create and document our processes so that anyone can understand them.

I’m sure I speak for Tom too when I say that I want to see SLMS last for decades, but I don’t want to be a trustee by then!