3. No matter what structures exist, power hierarchies naturally seem to
evolve.  Often they are based on experience or skills and many people do
not consider this totally bad.  How do you distinguish between a power
hierarchy based on experience and qualification versus one based on
prejudices about gender, age, or perceived trustworthiness?
 

I think this is a place the SLC Collective is getting it right. I think basing core direction and decision making power on skill and experience is a positive as it lends a "guiding" voice. Does that mean decisions are made without input? No, but there are folks with a vested and informed interest taking accountability.

 

I hope no one is basing organizational structure (I think "power structure" reads with an inherent bias") on prejudice. I do not think "perceived trustworthiness" is an unfair criteria. Trustworthiness, in my opinion, should be based on demonstrated commitment, skill and ability to follow through. Certain parts of an organization will meet certain peoples skill set, and again, having vested and experienced folks helping guide people to tasks is important.

 

From my perspective the SLC Collective rewards consistency and decision making skills with increased ability to make decisions and help make direction decisions. This seems like a fairly organic and non-arbitrary system that rewards the organization and the needs/desires/skills of the individual.

 

Eric (volunteer at the SLC Collective, who feels like he gets heard and listens)

 

On 2/20/07, Jonathan Morrison <jonathan@slcbikecollective.org> wrote:

Great questions!  I think the key with any process is to reserve the
right to "refuse anyone."  While this sounds like a dangerous use of
power, there is no process that is immune to exceptions.  So it is
best to assume they will happen.

How many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One struggle we have had at the Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective is
people making or not making decisions.  If you have one person making
decisions, they can get a lot done, but that isn't a collective
process.  If you have too many people involved in the process then
finding a meeting time everyone can make is hard, and when you have
them -- nothing gets decided.  We haven't figured it out, only that
the magic number of people, and the people themselves change as the
organization grows.

How do you avoid crummy people?

* One thing we have tried to do is make it a comfortable atmosphere
for everyone.  People with questionable intentions will naturally feel
unwelcome when surrounded by those with good and pure intentions.  We
have painted murals on the walls, play happy background music, keep
the place well lit, and constantly clean and organize.  That is
important, just like the people.

* Avoid bike snobs and other insecurities in power.  In Salt Lake we
have elderly people, men, women, children, and all races volunteer.
Anyone who comes in feels welcome and leaves feeling empowered.  The
key is that the people that are in charge need to feel comfortable and
frequently exercise the response "I don't know, let me look it up or
ask someone else."  It makes them human.  For this reason a
mechanically inclined core volunteer learning about bikes is often
more approachable than someone who has spent their lives in bike shops
and knows "everything."  After all, people come for community more so
than to get their bike fixed.  Those with lots of bike experience are
seem to be happier with larger projects when no one is around.

* Avoid decisions in a vacuum.  Publish votes and decisions that were
made, so that the people who made them are accountable.  You think
longer and harder about something if it is going on a permanent
record.



--
Sincerely,

Jonathan Morrison
Project Coordinator
Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective
2312 S. West Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84115
w: 801-328-2453
c: 801-688-0183
f: 801-466-3856
www.slcbikecollective.org

On 2/20/07, Graham Stewart < graham.stewart@winply.ca> wrote:
> I know many shops and projects out there have a policy of trying to
> eliminate barriers based on race, gender, age, class, etc.  Part of this
> approach is often using a collective and consensus based decision making
> process.
>
> Some of this is stuff the Bike-dump is dealing with and some of it is
> purely hypothetical.  Also, my opinions and concerns may not be the same
> as those shared by other people at the Bike Dump.
>
> Some questions to start discussion:
>
> 1. Who here tries to run a shop which eliminates power inequality by
> employing ideas like consensus based decision making within a collective?
>
> 2. How to you determine membership in the collective?  How do you deal
> with the inside/outside nature of decision making?  What if a person
> with an un-treated mental illness or serious addiction regularly
> contributes to the shop and wants to be part of decision making or be
> trusted with money?
>
> 3. No matter what structures exist, power heirarchies naturally seem to
> evolve.  Often they are based on experience or skills and many people do
> not consider this totally bad.  How do you distinguish between a power
> heirarchy based on experience and qualification versus one based on
> prejudices about gender, age, or percieved trustworthiness?
>
> Any thoughts or suggestions which fall outside my questions are welcome too.
>
> Graham at the Bike Dump
> _______________________________________________
> thethinktank mailing list
> thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
> http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org
>
_______________________________________________
thethinktank mailing list
thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org