Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision		 Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
manual:interviews:session1 [2016-08-22 11:53] – michkamanual:interviews:session1 [2017-03-25 11:09] – maja
Line 1: Line 1:
-====FoAM v0 - Starlab Cultural Department - ([?] - [?])====+====FoAM v0 - Starlab Cultural Department - (March 2000 - September 2000)==== 
 + 
 +===Members===
  
    * The members were    * The members were
Line 10: Line 12:
      * Nik arrived just before bankruptcy      * Nik arrived just before bankruptcy
  
-====FoAM v1 - Starlab non-profit spin-off - ([?] Before october 2001 ? - [?])====+====FoAM v1 - Starlab non-profit spin-off - (September 2000 - June 2001)==== 
 + 
 +===Structure type=== 
 + 
 +   * Starlab started a non-profit spin-off for proto-FoAM 
 + 
 +===Mission / Purpose===
  
-   * [?] Date ? 
-   * Starlab started a non-profit for proto-FoAM 
-   * FoAM is a starlab spin-off 
-   * Maja helped design the mission of this spin-off, but they did not wanted her to be on the board 
    * The mission of this spin off was to    * The mission of this spin off was to
      * Connect Starlab’s scientific research with art & culture¨      * Connect Starlab’s scientific research with art & culture¨
      * Put Starlab’s research out in the world      * Put Starlab’s research out in the world
      * Explore forms at the frontier between art & technology      * Explore forms at the frontier between art & technology
-     * The members were 
-       * Maja, Lina and Nik 
-         * They spent their 6 first months without being paid as core members 
- 
    * Quickly make an organization in Belgium to receive money for the project (from Flemish government + Ars electronica) (October 2001)    * Quickly make an organization in Belgium to receive money for the project (from Flemish government + Ars electronica) (October 2001)
    * Create a structure to work with others in the Netherlands (April 2002)    * Create a structure to work with others in the Netherlands (April 2002)
  
-====FoAM v2 - Non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs - (October 2001 [?] - 2010)===+===Members===
  
-   * [?] October 2001 +     * The members were: 
-   * This structure was designed by FoAM’s crew, in the post-Starlab era+       * Maja, Lina and Nik 
 +         * They spent their 6 first months without being paid as core members 
 +     * Maja helped design the mission of this spin-off, but they did not wanted her to be on the board 
 + 
 +====FoAM v2 - Non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs - (June 2001 - March 2010)=== 
 + 
 +===Structure type=== 
 +  
 +  * This structure was designed by FoAM’s crew, in the post-Starlab era
    * A non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs    * A non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs
      * Non-profit as a playground      * Non-profit as a playground
Line 37: Line 45:
      * The creation of spin-offs was not a core mission, but an economic feedback implementation to get revenue in case one was created      * The creation of spin-offs was not a core mission, but an economic feedback implementation to get revenue in case one was created
    * Creating multiple FoAM studios rather than one big FoAM    * Creating multiple FoAM studios rather than one big FoAM
-   * The mission of this organization was+     * Other FoAM studios based their statutes on FoAM Brussels statutes, but adapting to local situation 
 + 
 +===Mission / Purpose=== 
 +   * The mission of this organization was:
      * Still focused on art & technology      * Still focused on art & technology
      * However, opening to very broad collaborations across disciplines (not only art & technology) in an open way      * However, opening to very broad collaborations across disciplines (not only art & technology) in an open way
Line 43: Line 54:
        * Broader than art & technology        * Broader than art & technology
        * Open source        * Open source
 +
 +===Members===
    * Formally, regarding membership    * Formally, regarding membership
      * It started with Nik, Lina, Maja on the board + 1 belgium person in the general assembly      * It started with Nik, Lina, Maja on the board + 1 belgium person in the general assembly
Line 66: Line 79:
      * A lot of experiments ([?] on organizational re-design ? ) have been designed ever since      * A lot of experiments ([?] on organizational re-design ? ) have been designed ever since
  
-   * Other FoAM studios based their statutes on FoAM Brussels statutes, but adapting to local situation+===FoAM v2.1 - (2001-2005)===
  
-   * **2001-2005**+==Activities==
      * The two main focuses were around      * The two main focuses were around
        * Responsive environments        * Responsive environments
Line 76: Line 89:
      * No residencies at that time      * No residencies at that time
  
-   * **2006-2009**+===FoAM v2.2 - (2006-2009)=== 
 + 
 +==Structure type==
      * FoAM became an artlab      * FoAM became an artlab
        * Which is a funding-driven organization        * Which is a funding-driven organization
 +
 +==Mission / Purpose==
 +
      * After the LETHA project (presented at the Fuckup night), the focus was re-directed on environmentally/socially sustainable projects      * After the LETHA project (presented at the Fuckup night), the focus was re-directed on environmentally/socially sustainable projects
        * For instance, luminous green         * For instance, luminous green 
Line 84: Line 102:
        * The mission was redefined around a broader social/cultural/environmental sustainability vision        * The mission was redefined around a broader social/cultural/environmental sustainability vision
        * The circles were opened further        * The circles were opened further
 +       * The mission also shifted contentwise
 +         * The world situation was quite optimistic at that time
 +           * Climate change was becoming mainstream
 +           * Multidisciplinarity was being praised for in Davos
 +           * And then, all came back as it was previously !!!
 +           * This led to the “resilients/what if thinking” phase, which started late 2009
 +   * In late 2009, FoAM became a lab for speculative culture
 +
 +==Activities==
        * The work was distributed between        * The work was distributed between
          * Projects          * Projects
Line 95: Line 122:
            * For instance for Grig, an EU project which lasted 3 years from 2006 to 2009            * For instance for Grig, an EU project which lasted 3 years from 2006 to 2009
              * [? TBChecked] FoAM had to manage 5 times its operational budget              * [? TBChecked] FoAM had to manage 5 times its operational budget
-         * The mission also shifted contentwise 
-           * The world situation was quite optimistic at that time 
-             * Climate change was becoming mainstream 
-             * Multidisciplinarity was being praised for in Davos 
-             * And then, all came back as it was previously !!! 
-             * This led to the “resilients/what if thinking” phase, which started late 2009 
  
-   * In late 2009, FoAM became a lab for speculative culture+====FoAM v3 - Funding-induced structural change - (2010 - 2016)==== 
 + 
 +===Structure type===
  
-FoAM v3 +   * A hierarchical structure was imposed by funding in 2010, extension of board + membership) 
-Funding-induced structural change  +     * The funders requested  
-(2010 - now)+       * An extension of the board 
 +       * A larger general assembly 
 +     * This change brought extreme excitement and hope, at the idea of finaly sharing benefits AND responsibility across more people (about 20 people involved in all studios) 
 +       * The idea was to map a circle-based flexible and hierarchical structure on the legal one, including the others studios in the structure 
 +           * The structure intertwined the board and a core team 
 +             * The board included a member of the core team (Maja) 
 +             * The core team included all project leaders and a board member (Nik, for oversight) 
 +             * Its role was overall stewardship of the organization on a daily basis ([?] including other studios ?) 
 +           * The general assembly was made of 
 +             * All people working in FoAM ([?] Brussels ? Working as “paid” or as “participating in projects” ?) 
 +             * New members were involved by co-optation by the general assembly 
 +               * [?] Did some inclusion created debate ? 
 +               * Members could also be excluded by the general assembly 
 +                 * They had few self-exclusions from voting members 
 +                 * They also had few exclusions for inactivity 
 +               * The inclusion of other studios was designed by involving  
 +                 * A member of Brussels in the (board [?] or general assembly ?) of each studio 
 +                 * A member of each studio in the (board [?] or general assembly ?) of Brussels’ studio 
 +                 * But soon, quorum issues appeared, because the distance made it tricky for people to come at each General Assembly 
 +                 * So the statutes were changed so that members from other studios would be non-voting 
 +               * The main default of this structure still was that the three core board members were responsible for everything and everyone 
 +                 * General Assemblies looked like a farce 
 +               * Reasons for this structure not working may include 
 +                 * Members not wanting to be involved in governance, but just wanting to get the benefits 
 +                   * Space access, visibility, etc 
 +                 * Most of the people involved were there because they could get something out of FoAM 
 +                   * When “reciprocity time” came, there were a lot of tensions 
 +                 * [?] If you had to iterate, would you select exclusively people wanting to get involved in governance to join aboard ? 
 +                 * Starting from a crisis start up (bankruptcy), the protocols/procedures which were designed initially were difficult to break 
 +                   * It induced good processes to flow money & energy out ([?] how ?) 
 +                   * No “giving back” to the organization was formally structured 
 +                     * [?] How would you structure it now ? 
 +                 * Lessons learned include 
 +                   * Think it from the beginning ([?] How ? Don’t you have to fail to realize it ?) 
 +                   * Be very selective about the people you invite aboard ([?] how ?) 
 +                 * Untill 2012 [?] > very unsustainable practice 
 +                   * Money for project costs (materials + people) 
 +                   * The “core team” was being payed under minimal wage until 2012 ! 
 +                     * Rates as low as 1,5 € / hour sometimes ! 
 +                 * Share responsibility and benefits of all 
 +                   * If people are on the board and general assembly, then they should be interested in governing the organization
  
-- A hierarchical structure was imposed by funding in 2010, extension of board + membership) +   * Core team 
- - The funders requested +     * ([?] TBChecked) This institution is designed to manage FoAM Brussels laboratory on a daily basis 
- - An extension of the board +     * This institution was created in 2010 
- - A larger general assembly +       * Before 2010, this role was informal 
- - This change brought extreme excitement and hope, at the idea of finaly sharing benefits AND responsibility across more people (about 20 people involved in all studios) +     * Its size stayed in the 4-8 people range 
- - The idea was to map a circle-based flexible and hierarchical structure on the legal one, including the others studios in the structure +     * The representation of projects was stopped in 2012-2013 
- - The structure intertwined the board and a core team +     * Centralizing the core team on people running the organization
- - The board included a member of the core team (Maja) +
- - The core team included all project leaders and a board member (Nik, for oversight) +
- - Its role was overall stewardship of the organization on a daily basis ([?] including other studios ?) +
- - The general assembly was made of +
- - All people working in FoAM ([?] Brussels ? Working as “paid” or as “participating in projects” ?) +
- - New members were involved by co-optation by the general assembly +
- - [?] Did some inclusion created debate ? +
- - Members could also be excluded by the general assembly +
- - They had few self-exclusions from voting members +
- - They also had few exclusions for inactivity +
- - The inclusion of other studios was designed by involving  +
- - A member of Brussels in the (board [?] or general assembly ?) of each studio +
- - A member of each studio in the (board [?] or general assembly ?) of Brussels’ studio +
- - But soon, quorum issues appeared, because the distance made it tricky for people to come at each General Assembly +
- - So the statutes were changed so that members from other studios would be non-voting +
- - The main default of this structure still was that the three core board members were responsible for everything and everyone +
- - General Assemblies looked like a farce +
- - Reasons for this structure not working may include +
- - Members not wanting to be involved in governance, but just wanting to get the benefits +
- - Space access, visibility, etc +
- - Most of the people involved were there because they could get something out of FoAM +
- - When “reciprocity time” came, there were a lot of tensions +
- - [?] If you had to iterate, would you select exclusively people wanting to get involved in governance to join aboard ? +
- - Starting from a crisis start up (bankruptcy), the protocols/procedures which were designed initially were difficult to break +
- - It induced good processes to flow money & energy out ([?] how ?) +
- - No “giving back” to the organization was formally structured +
- - [?] How would you structure it now ? +
- - Lessons learned include +
- - Think it from the beginning ([?] How ? Don’t you have to fail to realize it ?) +
- - Be very selective about the people you invite aboard ([?] how ?) +
- - Untill 2012 [?] > very unsustainable practice +
- - Money for project costs (materials + people) +
- - The “core team” was being payed under minimal wage until 2012 ! +
- - Rates as low as 1,5 € / hour sometimes ! +
- - Share responsibility and benefits of all +
- - If people are on the board and general assembly, then they should be interested in governing the organization+
  
-- Core team +   * Board 
- - ([?] TBChecked) This institution is designed to manage FoAM Brussels laboratory on a daily basis +     * This institution is designed to be in between FoAM and the external world 
- - This institution was created in 2010 +     * It started by including FoAM members only, and then some external advisors were added ([?] post-2010 ?) 
- - Before 2010, this role was informal +     * Its size stayed in the range of 6-9 people
- - Its size stayed in the 4-8 people range +
- - The representation of projects was stopped in 2012-2013 +
- - Centralizing the core team on people running the organization+
  
-- Board +   * General assembly 
- - This institution is designed to be in between FoAM and the external world +     * [?] Did you propose to any project contributor to become a member ? 
- - It started by including FoAM members only, and then some external advisors were added ([?] post-2010 ?) +     * Its sized stayed in the range of 10-20 people
- - Its size stayed in the range of 6-9 people+
  
-- General assembly +   * In 2010, Maja and Nik went away for 6 months sabbatical, because burn-out was showing up 
- - [?] Did you propose to any project contributor to become a member ? +     * The first version of the manual was written at that time 
- - Its sized stayed in the range of 10-20 people+     * When they came back after 3 months 
 +     * The studio looked trashed, uncared for, people were having arguments 
 +       * Maja and Nik spent the next 3 months with more online presence 
 +       * When coming back from the sabbatical, at the beginning of 2011, things were getting better, but FoAM’s reputation was declining 
 +       * Many comments of people saying “you cannot let this happen” 
 +     * This is when the Resilients project started in June 2011
  
-- In 2010, Maja and Nik went away for 6 months sabbatical, because burn-out was showing up +===Mission/Purpose & Activities===
- - The first version of the manual was written at that time +
- - When they came back after 3 months +
- - The studio looked trashed, uncared for, people were having arguments +
- - Maja and Nik spent the next 3 months with more online presence +
- - When coming back from the sabbatical, at the beginning of 2011, things were getting better, but FoAM’s reputation was declining +
- - Many comments of people saying “you cannot let this happen” +
- - This is when the Resilients project started in June 2011+
  
-- From late 2009 onwards, FoAM Brussels is still running 100% in the “nurturing regime” - almost no “own work” +   * From late 2009 onwards, FoAM Brussels is still running 100% in the “nurturing regime” - almost no “own work” 
- - FoAM had its own projects, but was still nurturing other people within the projects, and not working with other skilled people on a “shared” basis +     * FoAM had its own projects, but was still nurturing other people within the projects, and not working with other skilled people on a “shared” basis 
- - Realization by the end of Resilients & PARN that most of the work was still about nurturing +       * Realization by the end of Resilients & PARN that most of the work was still about nurturing 
- - The projects always started perfectly +         * The projects always started perfectly 
- - The content was co-designed during a workshop +           * The content was co-designed during a workshop 
- - Clear responsibilities were established +           * Clear responsibilities were established 
- - The timing was made clear too +           * The timing was made clear too 
- - But then, it did not work as expected +         * But then, it did not work as expected 
- - Maja & Nik felt restricted +           * Maja & Nik felt restricted 
- - They were waiting for people to catch up +             * They were waiting for people to catch up 
- - They were spending a lot of time explaining things +             * They were spending a lot of time explaining things 
- - The partners were “the people who were there”, not the perfect purposed-design crew +             * The partners were “the people who were there”, not the perfect purposed-design crew 
- - It would have been better to work with people who really cared about the topic AND knew how to work on it +               * It would have been better to work with people who really cared about the topic AND knew how to work on it 
- - It felt like some of the partners did not really had something at stake in the project +               * It felt like some of the partners did not really had something at stake in the project 
- - The mistake was maybe to have picked people FoAM had pleasantly worked with in the past, but which were not appropriate for these specific projects +               * The mistake was maybe to have picked people FoAM had pleasantly worked with in the past, but which were not appropriate for these specific projects 
- - These projects were a failure regarding FoAM’s expectation, but were financially successful, EU was very happy about them +               * These projects were a failure regarding FoAM’s expectation, but were financially successful, EU was very happy about them 
- - All partners were satisfied too+                 * All partners were satisfied too
  
-- The audit came ([?] for Grig ?) in 2012, and induced a breaking point +   * The audit came (for Grig) in 2012, and induced a breaking point 
- - One year and half have been spent on the audit ([?] TBChecked) +     * One year and half have been spent on the audit (March 2012-August 2013) 
- - The first report from the auditors was asking 600 k€ back ([?] TBChecked) +     * The first report from the auditors was asking ~600 k€ back 
- - At the end of the process, they were asking “only” 300 k€ back, but after a lot of work, stress, etc ([?] TBChecked)+     * At the end of the process, they were asking “only” 300 k€ back, but after a lot of work, stress, etc
  
-- In 2013, the decision was made to actively split nurturing activities and own work +   * In 2013, the decision was made to actively split nurturing activities and own work 
- - Nurturing activities were residencies +     * Nurturing activities were residencies 
- - FoAM’s own research project was “Future Fabulators” +     * FoAM’s own research project was “Future Fabulators” 
- - This project worked much better than the previous ones +       * This project worked much better than the previous ones 
- - It was a “shower moment” from Maja, then shared with everyone else+     * It was a “shower moment” from Maja, then shared with everyone else
  
-- A good example of a successful feedback loop from “nurturing activities” is the “Future of Unconditional Basic Income” project +   * A good example of a successful feedback loop from “nurturing activities” is the “Future of Unconditional Basic Income” project 
- - The nurturing activity was to train me on the methodology +     * The nurturing activity was to train me on the methodology 
- - The feedback is to get the results from the workshop+     * The feedback is to get the results from the workshop
  
-General comments+====General comments====
  
-- Overarching principles of FoAM’s organization +   * Overarching principles of FoAM’s organization 
- - Invest in the minimum required for legal compliance +     * Invest in the minimum required for legal compliance 
- - Regarding structure +       * Regarding structure 
- - Regarding funding +       * Regarding funding 
- - Regarding reporting +       * Regarding reporting 
- - In order to have the smallest effort for administration needed+       * In order to have the smallest effort for administration needed
  
-- The loop regarding content can be summed up as this +   * The loop regarding content can be summed up as this 
- - Crowdsourcing interests and questions from the members +       * Crowdsourcing interests and questions from the members 
- - Craft a research program within the core team +       * Craft a research program within the core team 
- - Feed it back to the network+       * Feed it back to the network
  
-- Looking back on the relationship with the other studios +   * Looking back on the relationship with the other studios 
- - FoAM Brussels is the Generalists’ studio +       * FoAM Brussels is the Generalists’ studio 
- - Other studios focus on specific aspects - usually with a five years delay +       * Other studios focus on specific aspects - usually with a five years delay 
- - This organisation happened that way, not intentional+       * This organisation happened that way, not intentional
  
-[?]+====[?]====
  
-- Do you think that a better matching between legal responsibility and decision-making power within the structure would have been better ?+   * Do you think that a better matching between legal responsibility and decision-making power within the structure would have been better ?
  
-[TODO]+====[TODO]====
  
-Look at Maja’s doc sent by email +   * Look at Maja’s doc sent by email 
- It is now saved in the same folder as the text you are currently reading +     * It is now saved in the same folder as the text you are currently reading 
- Charter (txt) +       * Charter (txt) 
- Organisational diagram (pdf) +       * Organisational diagram (pdf) 
- FoAM blurbs (txt) +       * FoAM blurbs (txt) 
- [?] Dates of each blurbs +         * [?] Dates of each blurbs 
- There are two other online docs to be read +           * There are two other online docs to be read 
- FoAM projects +             * FoAM projects 
- FoAM mirror (inquiry through foam network) +             * FoAM mirror (inquiry through foam network) 
-Group questions+   * Group questions labeled in this doc
  • manual/interviews/session1.txt
  • Last modified: 2018-01-15 05:54
  • by 118.210.12.173