How to get more volunteers on night shifts

i find low sign up for volunteering are either signs of not enough communication of need, or not enough community feeling in the community. I think having larger signs that announce needs on site and maybe even include messages that directly link what people want to what is needed , eg "for tonight's party in this theme camp to be safe we need more rangers on shift!" and if its getting closer to dark and still no one signs maybe even as strong as "party cancelled until someone signs up for rangering!" if it (depends if we agree that running parties without rangers is so dangerous we would actually stop them, personally i would support this). i have a loads of dry wipe marker boards i would happily donate to make these signs or you can get them online for a few pounds. As for lack of community feeling, that is something i hope to address as i have shown interest in the community liaison team. I know at least eight people who would sign up for shifts but don't due to their various unresolved problems with Nest org and certain people's attitudes which they feel are not in line with the principles. ( I am one of them too, which is why i am volunteering for a core position to effect the needed changes so i can feel comfortable taking shifts on site )

Cancelling a party because of lack of Rangers? No. Never in a million years.

Part of a burn is radical self reliance. For each person. Rangers gift their time. That's their gift back to the burn. If there isn't anyone doing that role at that time, it means the community doesn't think they need that role.

In the UK we have to have paid security to cover the health and safety plus duty of care.

i disagree that the community made a decisions that they doesn't think they need that role. it's actually the opposite in my view. the community decided they did need the role when they consented to the rangering system and shift levels in a collective decision process before the event. if there aren't any on a particular shift that is a failure of the community to stick to what it agreed, probably because they got distracted by hedonism. Look how well that went for burning man back in the day. it almost collapsed in on itself, it took a push to make rangering a thing and have proper levels to make it healthy enough that it then grew massively. I don't really want nest to turn into the burning man years where people resolved disputes by pulling guns on each other....

i should also point out that the cancelling the party was extreme example to promote action, although i feel that if there are zero rangers on shift it is unwise to allow dangerous things to happen. if there is only six instead of eight that isn't a massive problems obviously. there were shifts which almost had zero to my limited knowledge though

I don't understand joining an organisation and then trying to change it.
Surely it's only attractive enough to join because of the way it has / is being run ? So changing it means it will no longer be what attracted you in the first place.

If it''s not what you want, wouldn't it be better to find something that is, or start another ?

I couldn't disagree more. I am interested because I see the potential for something that is already beautiful to be even more so. What's wrong with that? I've been involved in burns around the world and other volunteer organisations and open source projects and what you are suggesting is called 'forking' starting a new project because some parts of one don't work for you. And the prevailing wisdom is that is the last option to consider, working together is always more efficient than restarting. I am also hoping to start another UK burn in the wilds of Scotland but why should that preclude me trying to improve the one which is closest to where I live? If nest isn't open to change (it seems like it is from speaking to current stakeholders). Can I ask what your true motivation for your post was? Do you really just not understand my reasoning or are you resisting change? I know this type of work isn't for most people but if no one does it communities fail in achieving their goals, seeing that happen in the past is what drove me to learn about organisational change in the first place. But don't be scared I am trying to pose my will on anyone, it's quite the opposite. My desire is to ensure that happens less throughout the whole organisation.

I've seen over and over again, 'takeovers' of organisations by people with an agenda for change. Social organisations of all sorts, especially hackspaces. Open source projects. Yes, I understand intentions may be good.But almost always, the result is argument, schism and total loss. In the case of a single point of failure, such as a government, democratic change is needed. But any organisation that can simply be duplicated to handle two points of view is better doing that.
Forking is indeed what I mean. And a very effective tool it is too. If the fork is successful, it takes over in popularity from the original and little is lost. But if not, the original continues in good health. Better yet, both forks continue with their own preferences and priorities : reproduction through cellular division :). Yes, working together is better. But not if it involves the language of criticism instead of the language of cooperation.

Of course, nothing is perfect. Where a problem is acknowledged by all - especially the current organisation - there's a reason for change and a directed means of doing it. But if many people are happy with how things work, it's better to leave it alone. The risks of breaking are far higher than the chance of fixing. I emphasise again : the 'broken' organisation created something attractive.That's the whole package. How do you know that changing part of it won't break that ? Especially if it's something related to authority and responsibility.

Whenever I see the spectre of democratic change, voting, and other conflict-inducing practices in an organisation that's working well enough to be attractive to not only the existing users but also new ones, my hackles rise.

Good is the enemy of better.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
( I know the hacker's motto is 'if it an't broke, fix it until it is'. But that's supposed to be a cynical joke, because we KNOW that's what overzealous fixing does).

thanks for explaining your position Adrian. i guess i can say i've seen this over and over again as well. people who believe in top down power in the hands of special people as the best method, resisting any other system very hard. You are right that if those people are already in power any attempt to change that would result in conflict. The problem is that the current directors of Nest stood up in front of the community and said they want it to change to be more open, accountable and democratic. So we have an organisation in conflict internally already it seems. I don't agree with your thresholds though, to say 'problem is acknowledged by all' is a very high bar for any change at all, i would argue that many aren't aware of the issue, or understand it's significance. yes there are many nest members who just want to party and don't care how the volunteers who enable that organise themselves. that doesn't mean they don't care or are voting by inaction for no change. I would be very interested to hear other key nest peoples opinion on this wide organisational issue. i will move this to a new post in the governance group later today when i have more free time. thank you for putting in the effort to explain your earlier post in more detail, that is very helpful. I would also like to apologise in advance if my words here are not well written, i intend no personal attack at all in any way, i just want nest to grow into something even more beautiful. if the current members really don't want to look at my ideas, i will happily leave and focus solely on my new project. but that isn't really radical inclusion is it?

' people who believe in top down power in the hands of special people as the best method, resisting any other system very hard.'

I don't believe that at all. What I believe is that if some people buit it right, they should have first say in how to keep doing it right. They earned that.

' The problem is that the current directors of Nest stood up in front of the community and said they want it to change to be more open, accountable and democratic.'

That largely meets my thrshold. Unless everyone else stands up and shouts 'No ! Don't change anything'.

Change isn't bad in itself. Conflict-driven change usually is.

And thanks for taking the time to listen to my point of view.

i'm sorry but to me "they should have first say" equals 'power in the hands of special people' . i would also dis-agree that conflict driven change is bad, when the change i am proposing is purely a better ways to handle conflict. i am glad we can at least agree that the threshold for change being needed has been met. lets work together to make nest even more beautiful for all!

Community definitely wants Rangers. If no-one from the community wants to be a Ranger, you don't get Rangers. Forcing someone to be a Ranger is horrible, as then you get humans who treat Rangering as job, or as being an enforcer, instead of being what a Ranger is.

Danger is not on Rangers to stop. That is not a Ranger's responsibility, that is on the Site Leads, not Rangers.

A Ranger will explain to you, "That looks damn dangerous, you are probably going to hurt yourself. Are you sure you want to do it? Sure? Sweet, do it and I'll call the medics when you break your arm". A Ranger is not there to stop you having the burn you want to have.

Adrian. I don’t get your perspective at all. It can be applied in any scenario where a number of people recognise a problem within an organisation... “Don’t stir the pot, the founders want it this way”. If your view is in play, that the core Nest team intend to run it as an autocracy, and wilfully disregard issues raised, then I’d like them all to come out here and state that, together. So that I can avoid wasting my time trying to make it a better place for all. If they don’t do that, then I’ll just assume it’s your lone (rather odd) opinion and get on with ignoring it and trying to improve Nest. I presume you’re a mate of some of the core team. So you can please highlight this question to them, and encourage them to back your opinion openly? Thank you

But the founders have openly said they do not want it that way. They directly, publicly stated that they want the Directors to be more accountable to the community, and are all for democratic options. As for Toms being a rare opinion, maybe, but then I'm the second person to come forward and say I feel that way too. Look at the thread JJ set up on Facebook suggesting people vote. I was utterly dog piled for the use of wrong speak and wrong think. I used the word retarded as a pejorative to insult potential new UK legal legislation. I specifically called it "retarded nonsense", which I stand by, the Digital Economy Bill is utterly retarded nonsense. Among other things lots of people called me a bigot, I also got "horrible bigot" and "small pricked bigoted idiot". It doesn't seem like these people wanted to change my mind on value of free speech vs being able to ban words. They wanted to virtue signal to other authoritarians that they were on the same team, against me. I've been in some serious flame wars in my time, and I really could not care any less about the insults, I care that so much of the community came together to try and exclude me and make me feel bad. The insults to support ratio was an embarrassment to Nest in my opinion. However, with hindsight, the support was there, it just wasn't online at the time. Be the change you want to see in the world.

I barely know them, to be honest. I went to the community meeting and asked them to identify themselves because I had no clue who was who.

My position is more generic and philosophicial : how can it be that a person would want to change something that attracted them. All too often, they pick on something and 'fix' it without realising what they're breaking.

My support for core members is based on the idea that whether they're doing something 'wrong' or not, the result of their doing that has made something attractive that I (and, presumably, the revisionist) liked. So I change it at my peril.

But I already said that.

To be fair, I may have misread Tom (and I think a recent post tries to see that). His postings come over (probably unintentionally) as being ready to tear the core team apart in the name of transparency and 'democracy'. If the core team wants that, it's hardly revolutionary, is it ?

Tom: if people are choosing not to sign up for shifts at welfare, gate, rangers, etc. because they don’t like how a totally separate area of organisation at Nest has been done recently, that seems pretty strange to me. I mean, if you like and value rangering, for example, and are going to Nest, and are willing to volunteer generally, why wouldn’t you do it? Because someone posted something unrelated that you disagree with on Facebook? None of the above shifts are organised by the core team, and all of them serve the people at the event in general. It seems like trying to punish specific people you don’t like by hurting the community/event itself - why would you want to do that?

@amandasm i think you are missing the point that a number of people who attend Nest care a lot about organisational stuff and if they see types of org stuff they don't like in any nest space repeatedly, they will just avoid the whole thing, but still attend and party and ignore every call for volunteers. The thing is if just one bad actor is seen to be retaining a powerful position unchallenged it puts people off in general, partly because they fear that person could be on a site lead shift or something and mistreat them, or just because they don't want to 'work' for people who do things they see as against the principles, good manors or ethics. This problem only gets to this level if there is not effective conflict resolution for org issues, and no accountability for people in powerful roles. I hope to address both of those issues if i am welcomes to the community liaison team. there are also deeper structural issues which put people off too, a lot of people expect burns to be more communal and less top down than nest appears to be to many of them. i agree with you that doing so intentionally to punish people you don't like is illogical, but thats not what i'm talking about. it's more subtle, they just get turned off interacting with the org as a whole, with no spite or intent, only people like myself walk towards the fire and try and put it out, most people just avoid it.

Turned off from interacting with the org as a whole but happy to enjoy the hard labour of the org and party with them? Sound pretty hypocritical to me.

Tom I've read your comments here and on facebook and it honestly comes off that you have some kind of personal vendetta. Just because Nest/the-org isn't where we want it to be (when we agree on whatever that is) doesn't mean we need to rage against where it currently is.

@danielhurley1 Why accuse Tom of sounding like he has a vendetta if you don’t know what he’s thinking of? Why not just ask him what he’s talking about? The fact you don’t enquire makes it sound like you know, and have already taken sides and are trying to discredit him

What sides? Not everything is part of a dark plot.

That’s the vibe I got. That’s all.

@danielhurley1 Exactly what I was saying!?... It was you that accused him of some dark underlying motive! My point stands. I don’t think accusing him of a vendetta is a good way of querying his cause. Just ask!

Option A: The tone of your messages gives me the impression of a vendetta mate.

Option B: You have a vendetta, tell me all about it.

Option A doesn’t make accusations, just notes how someone has come across (to me personally) option B however is making an accusation. And I don’t care about whatever background drama may or may not exist, I just want respectful discussion of how we can work together and make nest even better.

@danielhurley1 Lol. Nicely put. Well I share both of your views now! I have sympathy if Tom takes issue with certain people. Just not sure I’d call it a vendetta. Don’t see why not liking certain people’s way of running things must equate to vendetta. Especially if those certain people are running the show. That’s just challenge to the status quo. What healthy organisation doesn’t want that hey?

@danielhurley1 i am describing a particular problem i've personally seen/heard here on a thread asking an open question for ideas as to why people don't respond to calls for volunteers. i also provided specific examples of practical solutions to communicating needs as well. i am not sure why you label my attempts to improve this beautiful community as a vendetta. it certainly doesn't feel that way to me. i guess there are some people who have really shocked me with there unsavoury attitudes and that may show some times, but i try to keep that in check and remain objective but i am only human. as is said in the conflict resolution document for nest, i don't have a problem with the person, i have a problem with the problem. I am sorry if that is not always clear. i have no desire for power of revenge or any other negative thing you may associate with a vendetta, i would by much happier if i didn't have to type long messages to move forward a debate. but when i see a community in distress and people yurning for change i want to gift my time to help improve this wonderful thing no matter how hard it may be or how many attack me for it. i hope you understand more now where i come from. i am happy to discuss this more here or in private if you still have concerns

You've also got 500 people going to Nest. From other regionals, the average percentage of Rangers is about 2-3% of the population. You are doing amazingly well.

there is a valid point here that levels of rangering compared to the size of the event is higher than other larger burns. do we need that many on shift? i've not got enough nest experience to answer that, anyone else feel there was too many (nothing to do) or too few?

You've also got a massive cross over with Welfare, Rangers and Site Leads. That again is a Nest burn specific decision to make. It's what they have chosen to do. All good!

Tom I signed up to do 00:00-08:00 Monday night/Tuesday morning and arrived to be told I was the only one to sign up for any of those 8 shifts and due to a no solo worker policy I was stood down meaning we had no rangers on at all.

Maybe make the shifts shorter after midnight. I wouldn’t mind giving up a couple of hours on an night. It might be easier to find volunteers for two hour slots at a time.

I agree with Hannah's comment about changing shift times. A 10-2 shift would be much easier to fill. Also agree we could review how many volunteers are needed at specific times. There should be enough info available to judge which are busy and which quiet times for each volunteer role.

A 2-hour shift? I seriously doubt that is possible. The whole point of these protective roles is to provide coverage in the instance of acute circumstances. 2 hours is not only a nightmare to schedule and get enough vols to cover a 24-hour period and all of it's shift handovers, it also barely gives a ranger enough time to deal with one situation before getting off shift. continuity of care and communications is in my experience crisis intervention teams' #1 problem. This is why we often schedule leads for 12 to even 24 hour on-call shifts. that ensures there is continuity in the event of crisis intervention and lessens potential for comms to fall through cracks during handovers. if you can't work a 4-hour shift, which is super short- most roles at the burn are 6, 8 or 12 hours- then just don't volunteer. in my experience, crisis situations can last upwards of 10 hours- and that's just your average challenging tripsit. switching sitters 5 times in that role is a nightmare and lessens the quality of support.

if you just want to lend a hand just come around and ask to help. always appreciated. that's not the same thing as volunteering to be responsible for covering a certain time period. 2 hours is not long enough for anyone to drop into responsibility and provide meaningful support in a crisis. it might be fine for deco or something but crisis roles are more serious and need a real commitment, not a drop in. besides, crisis roles mean being rested, prepped and sober. vols are happier to come in for a chunk of time twice and then be free the rest of the week than to prepare to be on the hook for just two hours three or four times. that messes with their party and will probably result in more no shows. but if the "commitment" is two hours just twice, well need twice as many volunteers. that means 1/5th of ticketholders at nest will need to be working two welfare shifts. :/ and meta or shiftleads will need to be present every two hours to observe a handover.

Part of me (a not so nice part, a devil's advocate part, I suppose) is tempted to say leave the shifts blank. If someone turns up to welfare in a sorry state at 4am on Saturday and there's no-one there to help, it reinforces the idea that everything is run by volunteers and noone is 'entitled' to these nice support systems. I think the fact that graveyard/missed shifts usually end up being filled by the lead (which is unfair) there is the illusion and feeling sometimes that 'if I dont sign up, someone else will' or 'everything seems filled, I don't need to bother'. I'm not actually suggesting we do this, rather illustrating a point Tl:dr Making empty shifts more visible somehow could help. I think there is often a lack of awareness or sense that someone else will do it.

I was only suggesting 2 hour shifts, for the times you had no volunteers in the early hours of the morning. If it’s not practical, then it can’t be done. But if I’ve been looking forward to an event for a whole year, spent money I’d scraped together to buy a membership, I’m not going to spend Friday/Saturday/Sunday night volunteering for a four hour shift, because it’s freezing cold, I’ll be exhausted the next day, everyone else will be having the time of their lives and I’ll be trying to fight to stay awake. Physically/mentally/emotionally can’t do it. That’s why I didn’t do it, and won’t do it in the future.

the idea here is to foster, nurture, further incentivise and reward people who value gifting to the community in this particular way- volunteering their time and skills to contain potential crisis and prevent acute circumstances. if committing to a position that provides that isn't for you, then it's not for you, im sure you have lovely gifts to offer. the teams that provide these services have to find people (and already have many people, thankfully) who are willing to commit to the real needs of the event, not bend over backwards trying to attract people who don't want to. We had fifty welfare vols this year- thats 1/10th of this community and AMAZING! How to make those vols proud to be a part of something bigger than themselves, make it easier and more fun to volunteer, provide more skills and learning experiences, create opportunities, and create memories for the thrillbank. YES graveyard swag- i've gotten coveted patches for working burn night before- lots of Fluffing and hot meals, endless coffee, biscuits and tea, directed access to tickets as every euroburn this year was sold out it seems. strengthening what we already have. if you don't want to volunteer your time then bring volunteers pizza and presents. yay.

Ooooh I like the swag idea 😍 I really enjoyed rangering, having a badge to pin somewhere to suggest you have done a shift would be a great way of seeing who volunteers every year to earn leads in certain areas, kinda like The Scouts 😁 also, I love badges.

Volunteers (and other groups but that's not relevant to this discussion) should get priority access/early direct sale to tickets the following year, we need to start preparing for when Nest sells out within a couple hours like we have seen at Microburn and other burns and half the people who step up end up ticketless.

I did strike at nowhere a few years back and we suffered from a lack of volunteers, those of us doing the hard work frequently commented that they should guarantee tickets the following year to those who stepped up (to encourage more volunteers), much surprise when we were told later that such a system did exist but you just had to ask your lead to "sort you out" (having done welfare and ranger shifts the prior years this was never communicated to me). That said they were trialling a new system and took my details and the following year I was sent a direct purchase link prior to general ticket sales (but could not go) I've not been able to go nowhere since so I don't know if it's now widely advertised that if you step up you get a ticket.

I'm also of the opinion that when we move to a system of voting for directors/leads/whatever as was discussed at the meeting that it should be those who contribute (ie volunteers) who get to vote. We want participants not spectators.

TL:DR - Volunteer = get early direct ticket sale the next year and get a vote on community matters. Highly advertise this.

Agreed. Solves two problems in one - people complaining about not being able to get tickets, and volunteering shifts not being filled.

• does this only work if there's definitely a ticket scarcity (sell out in a short window) situation?
• I like in theory the suggestion of a participation tiered community voting system - whereby attendees are all able to vote, but clocking xx [measurement] volunteering time gives +1 vote. However, I don't know if this would work in practice, especially with the issues around the many different sorts of work that go into the event, some of which are core work, and some aren't, but are equally valuable to the community.

@cheekyrich - keep it civil, please. There’s no need to start name-calling.

@charlottedavis i disagrees with you but I’ve deleted the comments in order to start a separate thread on the issue

Anyone that runs or is a part of a theme camp, should do a vol shift. Most of Mojo did gate, LNT, welfare and ranger shifts. I think it should be a condition of membership, so to fill the blank spaces.

I really love a night-time sober shift sometime between thurs and sunday because it helps pace my partying, a reason to be sober (burn sober). This year I had a quiet saturday, enjoyed the burn, but didn't want to ramp it up to go and party, was delighted to have a reason to go to bed at midnight and got up to come on ranger shift at 4, caught the tail-end of some lovely partying to observe, and had a great wholesome sunday.

I'm not saying that it's enjoyable for everyone, but I'm not unique in enjoying being involved but sober. It does take planning ahead with sleep and substance intake (obvs drinking for hours before your shift starts does not make you sober) - and everyone will handle it in different ways, and it is a skill that I think I was mentored into by starting coming to nowhere with a partner who was an experienced, and very shift-taking dutiful (as well as contributing to build, take down and sometimes art) burner.

I do think sharing stories of volunteering time being a highlight of burns, something which makes people a part of the community, is really valuable for increasing community participation in all aspects of the event. Including graveyard shifts.

Could shifts be made shorter? or shared by two people who would not mind doing a couple of hours? Four hours shifts might be too long for some people who would happily do two.