Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| manual:interviews:session1 [2016-08-22 11:53] – michka | manual: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=== | ||
| - | * [?] 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 | + | * 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 | * A non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs | ||
| * Non-profit as a playground | * Non-profit as a playground | ||
| Line 37: | Line 47: | ||
| * 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 56: | ||
| * 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 81: | ||
| * 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 91: | ||
| * 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/ | * After the LETHA project (presented at the Fuckup night), the focus was re-directed on environmentally/ | ||
| * For instance, luminous green | * For instance, luminous green | ||
| Line 84: | Line 104: | ||
| * The mission was redefined around a broader social/ | * The mission was redefined around a broader social/ | ||
| * 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/ | ||
| + | * 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 124: | ||
| * 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/ | ||
| - | * 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), | ||
| + | * 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 |
| - | - An extension of the board | + | * This institution |
| - | - 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 | + | * Its size stayed |
| - | - 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 |
| - | - The structure intertwined the board and a core team | + | * Centralizing |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - The general assembly | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - Space access, visibility, etc | + | |
| - | - Most of the people | + | |
| - | - When “reciprocity time” came, there were a lot of tensions | + | |
| - | - [?] If you had to iterate, would you select exclusively people wanting to get involved | + | |
| - | - Starting from a crisis start up (bankruptcy), | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - Core team | + | * Board |
| - | - ([?] TBChecked) | + | * This institution is designed to be in between |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - The representation | + | |
| - | - Centralizing the core team on people | + | |
| - | - 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 | ||
| + | * 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/ |
| - | - 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” | + | |
| - | - 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, | + | * These projects were a failure regarding FoAM’s expectation, |
| - | - All partners were satisfied too | + | * All partners were satisfied too |
| - | - 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 |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 | + | |
| - | - 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 ? | + | |
| - | [TODO] | + | ====[TODO]==== |
| - | 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 |