Two proposals were discussed during the onboarding workshop. This page lists requirements, facts, advantages and disadvantages of each.

Requirements

• Attend at least four open days at Hackeriet before applying for access.
• After that, the board decides on granting access.
• If the board does not have enough basis for a decision, the board contacts the other members where there is still no bases for a decision the person must attend more open days.

Facts

• Membership is still granted upon payment and registration.
• The “four days” rule applies only to access to the space (keys, cards).
• Decision-making remains with the board.

Advantages

• Clear and transparent: same requirement for everyone.
• Collective evaluation: several members have the chance to meet the person.
• Low dependency on individual mentors.
• Matches the egalitarian principle: equal treatment, no special arrangements.

Disadvantages

• Rigid: “four” is arbitrary, may be too much for some, too little for others.
• Less personal integration: new members might not get close follow-up.
• Can be slow for motivated newcomers who want to engage quickly.
• Responsibility for judgement rests mainly with the board, even if they have not observed the person directly.

Requirements

• When someone shows interest, the board assigns them a mentor from a volunteer list.
• The mentor introduces the person to Hackeriet.
• The mentor decides whether the person is suitable, and if so, grants access to the application process.

Facts

• Membership is granted upon payment, as in proposal 1.
• Access depends on mentor’s evaluation.
• Mentors must be available and willing to take responsibility.

Advantages

• Personal welcome: newcomers have a dedicated contact person.
• Faster integration: easier to introduce projects, culture, and routines.
• Responsibility is delegated, reducing administrative load on the board.
• Builds stronger community ties: mentors gain ownership of the onboarding.
• Flexible: allows adjustment to individual circumstances.

Disadvantages

• Uneven practice: different mentors may have different standards.
• Risk of cliques: access depends on social circles.
• Requires an active pool of mentors; may strain a few people.
• Unclear governance: who has the final say, mentor or board?

Both models aim to protect trust and culture (“vibe check”), but they solve it differently:

• Proposal 1 emphasises collective exposure and consistency.
• Proposal 2 emphasises personal guidance and faster inclusion.