Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		 Previous revision
manual:interviews:session1 [2016-08-22 11:46] – created michkamanual:interviews:session1 [2018-01-15 05:54] (current) – 118.210.12.173
Line 1: Line 1:
-====FoAM v0 - Starlab Cultural Department - ([?] - [?])====+====FoAM v0 - Starlab Cultural Department - (March 2000 - September 2000)==== 
 + 
 +(NOTE: in need of editing and fact-checking) 
 + 
 +===Members===
  
    * The members were    * The members were
Line 10: Line 14:
      * 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=== 
 + 
 +   * The mission of this spin off was to 
 +     * Connect Starlab’s scientific research with art & culture¨ 
 +     * Put Starlab’s research out in the world 
 +     * Explore forms at the frontier between art & technology 
 +   * 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) 
 + 
 +===Members=== 
 + 
 +     * The members were: 
 +       * 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 
 +     * Non-profit as a playground 
 +     * Develop services and products that could generate income 
 +     * Feed part of the money back in the non-profit 
 +     * 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 
 +     * 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 
 +     * However, opening to very broad collaborations across disciplines (not only art & technology) in an open way 
 +     * Wrapping it up, the new elements brought in in this new form of structure 
 +       * Broader than art & technology 
 +       * Open source 
 + 
 +===Members=== 
 +   * Formally, regarding membership 
 +     * It started with Nik, Lina, Maja on the board + 1 belgium person in the general assembly 
 +       * Strictly minimal legal requirement 
 +     * But funders did not like it 
 +       * Funding schemes pushed towards a certain kind of governance, even though it was not a legal requirement 
 +   * Informally, regarding membership 
 +     * Very horizontal way of working 
 +     * Everyone involved was invited to be part of the decision-making 
 +     * The group came together when it was needed, people not wanting to come did not 
 +     * All kind of decisions were taken in these assemblies 
 +       * Yearly meetings for organisational planning 
 +       * Meetings adressing project design & planning 
 +         * Before submitting to funders 
 +         * After getting the project, to decide how to work together 
 +           * Who would do what ? 
 +           * How would money be shared ? 
 +     * About 8-10 people were gathering around the table, up to 20 when gathering all the participants of an EU project 
 +     * It worked well when things were working, but an implicit power structure (mostly based on legal responsibilities) was revealed as soon as difficulties were showing up 
 +       * Maja was involved as implicit facilitor, usually also as money handler, too many hats ! 
 + 
 +   * The core members realized they were exhausted, but without understanding why until 2009 
 +     * A lot of experiments ([?] on organizational re-design ? ) have been designed ever since
  
-- [?] Date ? +===FoAM v2.1 - (2001-2005)===
-- 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 +
- - Connect Starlab’s scientific research with art & culture¨ +
- - Put Starlab’s research out in the world +
- - 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) +==Activities== 
-- Create a structure to work with others in the Netherlands (April 2002)+     * The two main focuses were around 
 +       * Responsive environments 
 +       * Groworld, a project related to ecological art 
 +         * These focuses both started at the same time 
 +       * Most of the activities were about these two main focuses, and workshops with invited people 
 +     * No residencies at that time
  
-FoAM v2 +===FoAM v2.2 - (2006-2009)===
-Non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs  +
-(October 2001 [?] - 2010)+
  
-- [?] October 2001 +==Structure type== 
-- This structure was designed by FoAM’s crew, in the post-Starlab era +     * FoAM became an artlab 
-- A non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs +       * Which is a funding-driven organization
- - Non-profit as a playground +
- - Develop services and products that could generate income +
- - Feed part of the money back in the non-profit +
- - 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 +
-- The mission of this organization was +
- - Still focused on art & technology +
- - However, opening to very broad collaborations across disciplines (not only art & technology) in an open way +
- - Wrapping it up, the new elements brought in in this new form of structure +
- - Broader than art & technology +
- - Open source +
-- Formally, regarding membership +
- - It started with Nik, Lina, Maja on the board + 1 belgium person in the general assembly +
- - Strictly minimal legal requirement +
- - But funders did not like it +
- - Funding schemes pushed towards a certain kind of governance, even though it was not a legal requirement +
-- Informally, regarding membership +
- - Very horizontal way of working +
- - Everyone involved was invited to be part of the decision-making +
- - The group came together when it was needed, people not wanting to come did not +
- - All kind of decisions were taken in these assemblies +
- - Yearly meetings for organisational planning +
- - Meetings adressing project design & planning +
- - Before submitting to funders +
- - After getting the project, to decide how to work together +
- - Who would do what ? +
- - How would money be shared ? +
- - About 8-10 people were gathering around the table, up to 20 when gathering all the participants of an EU project +
- - It worked well when things were working, but an implicit power structure (mostly based on legal responsibilities) was revealed as soon as difficulties were showing up +
- - Maja was involved as implicit facilitor, usually also as money handler, too many hats !+
  
-- The core members realized they were exhausted, but without understanding why until 2009 +==Mission / Purpose==
- - 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+     * After the LETHA project (presented at the Fuckup night), the focus was re-directed on environmentally/socially sustainable projects 
 +       * For instance, luminous green  
 +         * Which arose in 2004-2005, but became a project officially afterwards 
 +       * The mission was redefined around a broader social/cultural/environmental sustainability vision 
 +       * 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
  
-2001-2005 +==Activities== 
- - The two main focuses were around +       * The work was distributed between 
- - Responsive environments +         * Projects 
- - Groworld, a project related to ecological art +         * Sharing knowledge and skills 
- - These focuses both started at the same time +         * Both these aspects ran in parallel for a while, and then, both funding and people involved pushed FoAM’s own projects out 
- - Most of the activities were about these two main focuses, and workshops with invited people +           * There were mostly artists wanting their own projects to be supported 
- - No residencies at that time+           * This change was quite imperceptible, and not in the original mission 
 +           * At some point, FoAM was just about nurturing, and not any more 50 % own work as it used to be 
 +         * Pushed by EU, Flemish government and radical bureaucracy of funding, more and more reporting to do 
 +           * Agencies are outsourcing their reporting work on project-managing artist-run structures 
 +           * 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
  
-2006-2009 +====FoAM v3 - Funding-induced structural change - (2010 - 2016)====
- - FoAM became an artlab +
- - Which is a funding-driven organization +
- - After the LETHA project (presented at the Fuckup night), the focus was re-directed on environmentally/socially sustainable projects +
- - For instance, luminous green  +
- - Which arose in 2004-2005, but became a project officially afterwards +
- - The mission was redefined around a broader social/cultural/environmental sustainability vision +
- - The circles were opened further +
- - The work was distributed between +
- - Projects +
- - Sharing knowledge and skills +
- - Both these aspects ran in parallel for a while, and then, both funding and people involved pushed FoAM’s own projects out +
- - There were mostly artists wanting their own projects to be supported +
- - This change was quite imperceptible, and not in the original mission +
- - At some point, FoAM was just about nurturing, and not any more 50 % own work as it used to be +
- - Pushed by EU, Flemish government and radical bureaucracy of funding, more and more reporting to do +
- - Agencies are outsourcing their reporting work on project-managing artist-run structures +
- - 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 +
- - 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+===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/session1.1471866366.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2016-08-22 11:46
  • by michka