Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 3.140.198.12
Lock expires at: 2024-05-16 05:22 (5 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====FoAM v0 - Starlab Cultural Department - ([?] - [?])====

===Members===

   * The members were
     * Maja
     * 2 other core members
       * One of them, a scientist, moved away after bankruptcy because he needed more stability
       * Lina, which stayed until 2011
         * She was initially supposed to be here with a temporary contract to get a permit in Europe, and then start her own project
     * Employees on a project basis
     * Nik arrived just before bankruptcy

====FoAM v1 - Starlab non-profit spin-off - ([?] Before october 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 - (After April 2002 [?] - 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



   * **2001-2005**
     * 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

   * **2006-2009**
     * 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

====FoAM v3 - Funding-induced structural change - (2010 - now)====

   * A hierarchical structure was imposed by funding in 2010, extension of board + membership)
     * The funders requested 
       * 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

   * Core team
     * ([?] TBChecked) This institution is designed to manage FoAM Brussels laboratory on a daily basis
     * This institution was created in 2010
       * Before 2010, this role was informal
     * 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
     * This institution is designed to be in between FoAM and the external world
     * It started by including FoAM members only, and then some external advisors were added ([?] post-2010 ?)
     * Its size stayed in the range of 6-9 people

   * General assembly
     * [?] Did you propose to any project contributor to become a member ?
     * Its sized stayed in the range of 10-20 people

   * In 2010, Maja and Nik went away for 6 months sabbatical, because burn-out was showing up
     * 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
       * Realization by the end of Resilients & PARN that most of the work was still about nurturing
         * The projects always started perfectly
           * The content was co-designed during a workshop
           * Clear responsibilities were established
           * The timing was made clear too
         * But then, it did not work as expected
           * Maja & Nik felt restricted
             * They were waiting for people to catch up
             * They were spending a lot of time explaining things
             * 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 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
               * These projects were a failure regarding FoAM’s expectation, but were financially successful, EU was very happy about them
                 * 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)
     * The first report from the auditors was asking 600 k€ back ([?] TBChecked)
     * At the end of the process, they were asking “only” 300 k€ back, but after a lot of work, stress, etc ([?] TBChecked)

   * In 2013, the decision was made to actively split nurturing activities and own work
     * Nurturing activities were residencies
     * FoAM’s own research project was “Future Fabulators”
       * This project worked much better than the previous ones
     * 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 feedback is to get the results from the workshop

====General comments====

   * Overarching principles of FoAM’s organization
     * Invest in the minimum required for legal compliance
       * Regarding structure
       * Regarding funding
       * Regarding reporting
       * 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
       * Craft a research program within the core team
       * Feed it back to the network

   * Looking back on the relationship with the other studios
       * FoAM Brussels is the Generalists’ studio
       * Other studios focus on specific aspects - usually with a five years delay
       * 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]====

   * Look at Maja’s doc sent by email
     * It is now saved in the same folder as the text you are currently reading
       * Charter (txt)
       * Organisational diagram (pdf)
       * FoAM blurbs (txt)
         * [?] Dates of each blurbs
           * There are two other online docs to be read
             * FoAM projects
             * FoAM mirror (inquiry through foam network)
   * Group questions labeled in this doc