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!