<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>When we first wrote our by-laws we made keys a "reward" for members who paid dues. Paying dues has never been a requirement for membership in Davis Makerspace and our goal has always been to provide a space where anyone can participate regardless of their ability to pay. However, we still have to pay rent, so we were trying to encourage anyone who was able to contribute financially to do so. The point that I used to try to make was that having a key granted you access to the space during non "business" hours, but members without keys (and the general public) could still use the space whenever it was open. The goal was to eventually reach a point where there were enough key-holding members using the space throughout the week that people who didn't have keys (members or otherwise) would feel that they still had reasonable access to the space. <br>
<br></div>Perhaps defining some "business" hours could help with our different use cases. In the afternoon and evening (say 12:00 to 8:00) the space is open. Meaning that if you are in the space during those hours there is an expectation that non key-holding members and others can be in the space. Outside of those hours you are free to open the space or not.<br>
<br></div>There is an entirely separate issue of what exactly your responsibilities would be during open hours. A number of people at the meeting said that they didn't want to be responsible for other people in the space or have to stop what they're doing and teach some random person how to use a 3D printer. I totally agree. The primary service that a key-holding member provides is just opening the door for members who don't have keys. The main thing here is that the people you are opening the space to are fellow members, they just don't have a key. These individuals should already be familiar with our rules and policies and know what equipment they are and are not allowed to use. Of course there may be other non-members who drop by, but we should be most concerned with non key-holding members. We won't be able to attract and retain new members if they don't feel that they have access to the space.<br>
<br>Which brings me to an important point -- no random person who drops in should be allowed to use a 3D printer, or any potentially dangerous/fragile equipment. We haven't come up with a formal certification program, but maybe this will provide the needed motivation to get something hammered out. The fact of the matter is that there really isn't much for a random drop-in to do in the space, and I think that if you are the one who opened the space, your responsibility is basically to greet the person, explain who we are and how we operate, ask them what their interests are, and then direct them to an open house or an event we are hosting where there is a clear expectation of interaction and/or education. That's it. No one should feel pressured to do a demo or put on an impromptu clinic when someone drops by the space. <br>
<br>Now, if you are a member who is interested in doing demos and working with random strangers, that's great! Do that. Hopefully as our membership continues to grow we'll get to the point where, no matter when you drop by, there's a pretty good chance you'll run into a member who will geek out with you about arduinos, or linux, or circuit building, or whatever. However, it might take a while for us to get there. <br>
<br></div><div>tl;dr<br></div><div><br></div><div>* We should define some standard business hours outside of which you are free of all obligations<br></div><div>* During business hours non-key holding members can come in to work (they have to leave when you do and follow all space rules/policies while in the space)<br>
</div><div>* If a wild, non-member appears, smile and ask what they like to make and then tell them you'll see them at Open House<br></div><div><br></div><div>-Jordan<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Tim F <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davispcug@yahoo.com" target="_blank">davispcug@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
November 6, 2013<br>
<br>
Hi James and everybody --<br>
<br>
Thank you James for writing up that distillation!<br>
<br>
I thought that the discussion on Monday night was great. It really makes me feel good that we had a respectful discussion about a subject is important to many of us. Thank you all for that, and thank you Jeff for your work on these issues and for your fresh ideas!<br>
<br>
To answer the questions that James posted: I think that we could divide time up at the space to serve James' first model (a public space) AND his third model (a private space).<br>
<br>
And in order for that to work, we'd need to mix in a little of his second model (requiring some sort of acceptance of "membership" into the group). Perhaps we would use Jeff's suggestion to guide that acceptance policy (Jeff suggested that those wishing key access would submit a written proposal/justification to some subset of the voting members, such as the Board).<br>
<br>
For example, we could give key access to those people who committed to act as trained "hosts" or "mentors" or "facilitators": they would staff open hours. Perhaps several evenings during the week, plus some earlier hours on weekends. That would allow us to provide a space open to the public (providing, of course, that we had a clear and posted liability policy): James' first model. We are already doing this, actually; it hasn't been formalized.<br>
<br>
A few folks would need key access for management reasons or in order to maintain the infrastructure; for example, the Board, and people who would maintain special facilities such as the door access system, delicate/dangerous/expensive tools, etc. We are also already doing this.<br>
<br>
So the first model is already in use.<br>
<br>
James' third model would provide private access to the space. Private access could happen at any hour, even during public access hours; but private access should not trump public access (if someone wanted to use the space privately during a public session, the public session should prevail).<br>
<br>
I believe that the Board feels a responsibility to protect the space and the members from possible abuses of the space. That suggests that the Board would need to create policies for granting private access for that third model; and that the Board would need to put in some systems (such as a camera monitoring the inside of the door) to try to discourage abuses or at least to help catch any abusers.<br>
<br>
I've put out these thoughts in the spirit of compromise: a two-model system like this one might be acceptable for folks who want private access. I would hope that they would be willing to agree to access-granting policies created by the Board.<br>
<br>
I believe we are already running a nearly-open model, and that only a few folks have private access. I think that most of those folks are the ones that are already giving their time by serving the group and the space. I really don't know if we've given out any keys to people only because of their financial contributions.<br>
<br>
My own preference would actually be different from this two-model system: I would prefer a mostly-public model with private access granted only to those members who donate significant hours by supporting the public model and/or significant hours supporting the management of the space or maintaining its facilities; and I would not want donations of money to be a factor in granting access. If we have already given out keys based only on financial donations, I'd want the Board to ask for those keys to be returned.<br>
<br>
Why do I feel that way? Because I worry about people gaming the rules for a private access system and abusing the system and our space.<br>
<br>
Wow, heavy... (to use a dated idiom!). But not too heavy; I think our members are good people! I'm looking forward to hearing from you all.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Tim F<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------<br>
On Tue, 11/5/13, James R Holliday <<a href="mailto:jrholliday@davismakerspace.org">jrholliday@davismakerspace.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Subject: [dms-discuss] Space Use Models<br>
To: <a href="mailto:discuss@davismakerspace.org">discuss@davismakerspace.org</a><br>
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2013, 1:02 PM<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
Hey, makers.<br>
<br>
At last night's general meeting, we had a good discussion<br>
regarding<br>
possible key access and space access policies. Jeff<br>
will be collating<br>
some of the ideas and presenting them here for further<br>
discussion soon.<br>
<br>
One thing that came out of the round table discussion was<br>
the<br>
realization that there are at least three different ideas<br>
regarding the<br>
usage of our space:<br>
<br>
1) A fully-open space where anyone can come in and use any<br>
of the services.<br>
<br>
2) A moderated space where people need to integrate<br>
themselves (become<br>
"members") before using the space<br>
<br>
3) A private-use space where "members" can come in<br>
autonomously and work<br>
in peace and quiet.<br>
<br>
Note: I'm paraphrasing and simplifying the ideas that came<br>
out last night.<br>
<br>
I'd like to invite more input. Are there other use<br>
models that *you*<br>
(makers of Davis) would want? Are there any strong<br>
feelings for or<br>
against particular use models? What kind of mix of<br>
models should we offer?<br>
<br>
-James<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Davis Makerspace Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.davismakerspace.org">Discuss@lists.davismakerspace.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Davis Makerspace Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.davismakerspace.org">Discuss@lists.davismakerspace.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>