I really need to go to bed, but I can't without saying this.  I would love a statement that our projects should be more diverse than our backgrounds and that "who am I to tell you what constitutes a valuable contribution to society".  It's about not judging and valuing all sorts of contribution equally.  They're apples to oranges, but we aren't picky about our fruit.  And I think that's the fundamental morsel offered by "it is not for us to decide who is 'really' hacking."  That said, I cannot express how strongly I oppose any form of the word "hacking" in any official document we create.  This is why:

1.) It's nonstandard English.  Define ["hacker"](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Ahacker), or define ["hacking"](https://www.google.com/search?q=define:hacking).  Nowhere in either definition, even expanded ones, does it include anything remotely resembling "the creation or adaptation of something".  Even the [wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_%28hobbyist%29) on a hacker hobbyist is heavily, heavily biased towards the idea of incorporating technology and, in particular, computer technology, into the creation of things.

2.)  Outside of tech, it is not in common usage.  Yes, I have heard *countless* tech-savvy people refer to a huge breadth of activities, both involving technology and not, as "hacking".  But I have only ever heard tech people use the term.  My own coworker, who has really enjoyed his periodic trips to various bay area "maker faires", expressed his disinterest at anything called a "hacker space".  By using the term, we are targeting a tech demographic, and as we've already agreed on, we want to find people who are not like ourselves.

3.) Because it's nonstandard English, it translates very poorly.  For example, even in German, which tends to be **very** tech-savvy, there is [no translation of hackerspace](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackerspace): the plain english version is used.  If I'm someone who just moved to SF from overseas, and English is my second or third or fifth language, I could be looking high and low for someplace exactly like NIL without ever knowing to call it a "hackerspace".  In a city as multinational as SF is, that's a big problem when it comes to being inclusive.

4.) It carries a stigma.  Like it or not, when we use the term "hacker" or any form of it, we are associating ourselves with [this](http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/be_careful_who_you_slur_as_a_techie/) sentiment, with [this](http://sfist.com/2013/12/03/techies_hate_it_when_you_call_them.php) derision, and with [this](http://valleywag.gawker.com/psa-please-stop-calling-nerds-the-t-word-1475784145) kind of embarrassment.  I have had several very long conversations with friends of mine that don't work in tech about how absolutely absurd the word "hacker" or "hacking" is.  These are intelligent, organized, passionate, artistic people that I would love to work with.  They are teachers and historians and biologists that would want nothing to do with the space because of a simple word choice.  Using this term will give a non-negligible number of people the irreversible impression that NIL is "out of touch", regardless of whether or not we actually are.  And especially if our values include things like openness and inclusion and "who am I to tell you what is and isn't valuable", this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing, because we're cutting ourselves off from an entire perspective.

5.) NIL is not the place to be making a spoken or written statement about that stigma, plain and simple.