[dms-discuss] Key Policy thoughts

Jeff Tolentino jefftolentino at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 14 23:20:49 PDT 2013


Thanks Jim!


________________________________
 From: Jim Stewart <jstewart at jkmicro.com>
To: Jeff Tolentino <jefftolentino at yahoo.com>; Davis Makerspace General Discussions <discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org> 
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [dms-discuss] Key Policy thoughts
 


My comments in violet - Jim
 Jim, See my responses/comments below.  Thanks for taking the time to prepare this! 
 
Jeff T




After reading over the Key Policy Development wiki page,
here are my thoughts...


Prerequisites for all keyholders:

Age 18 or greater.  Good

Member in good standing.  Agreed

Ability and willingness to assist and/or mentor other
Makerspace members or the public in at least one skill
supported by the space.  Agreed

Examples would be 3D printers, electronics,
Arduino development, art projects, carpentry
or metalworking. Good

Willingness to accept the role of Davismakerspace
representative to the community.  Good

New visitors can be easily discouraged by being
ignored or treated with annoyance or condescension.
Keyholders would be expected to greet visitors,
explain the resources available, and encourage
them to attend the next meeting.  Good

Signed Keyholder Agreement on file Good suggestion

Another project.  I think a Keyholder Agreement
is needed to clearly spell out the responsibilities
of the job.  I'm willing to help develop it.  Good.  I’d love if you’d like to develop this!


Members meeting all of the above requirements are
also expected to contribute to the Davismakerspace
in at least one of the following ways:

Financial.  I feel that this could to be a sticking point for the group.  There have been a couple comments that monetary donations should not be a part of the key access process.  To help aid the discussion, could you expand a little on why you support the fee model?   One of the criticisms was that giving money doesn’t necessarily equal trustworthiness.


Two reasons, one selfish and the other not so much.  Personally, the financial model works for me.  I already have access to three separate well-stocked shops in the evenings and on weekends.  Currently, I’d get less done at the Makerspace than at home or work.  OTOH, resources like the 3D printers and the large graphics printer would make access worth the $30/month.  And being part of the community through the Makerspace.  
 
The not-so-selfish reason is that just about any business needs a reliable, recurring source of income.  Since there is no longer a membership fee model, I feel that another recurring
source of income will be needed for the ongoing financial health of the group.
 
As to the argument “giving money doesn’t necessarily equal trustworthiness”, I agree.  But neither does giving time.  I structured my proposal firstly with a series of prerequisites for everyone.  The idea is to do the trustworthiness vetting with them, not whether a person gives time or money.    
 
Just in passing, over the years I’ve trusted a couple dozen people with keys to my business.  Most of them had a very high level of personal integrity.  A few of them had questionable levels of personal integrity.  None of them ever stole a penny’s worth of goods, tools or anything else.  I don’t believe this is because I’m a good judge of character.  More likely, it’s because our interests preselect for people that are inherentlyhonest.   
 

A continuing level of donation.  $30 per month
has been discussed.

Time

A minimum committment of 5 hours a month.  Board
member activity would be counted towards the
time committment as would fundraising, public
relations and educational work.  General meeting
attendance would not count.  OK

  The 5 hours number was just pulled out of the
  air.  OK

Service

At the board's pleasure, keyholder privilages
might be granted for extraordinary service in
support of the goals of the organization, the
community, or the Makers movement.  Noted.



Keyholder Approval Process

I propose the creation of a 3 member Keyholder
committee of board members and/or current
keyholders.  The committee would meet in private
with perspective keyholders, review the pre-
requisites and either recommend or decline to
recommend keyholder privileges be granted to
the applicant.

Committee members declining a member for keyholder
privileges would be expected to explain their reasoning,
offer suggestions for remedying issues standing
in the way of keyholder status and advise when the
member can reapply.  All information and discussion
of declined keyholder privileges must remain confidential.
This seemed slightly ambiguous, so I just want to clarify, the committee members would only need to explain their reasoning for denial,
offer suggestions for remedying issues standing
in the way of keyholder status and advise when the
member can reapply to the proposed keyholder, correct?  Otherwise, that information would be confidential to everyone else.  Similarly, would discussion of approved keyholder privilages be public information?


Sorry for the ambiguity.  
 
To put it another way, the keyholder approval process should
be treated like a Human Resources activity, with discretion
and appropriate confidentiality.  
 
By “approved keyholder privilages”, do you mean global privilages,
Or  possibly restricted privilages for a specific member?    As to
global privilages, I see no reason why that would be confidential.
 
I have not considered restricted privilages.  
 
 

Members recommended for keyholder privilege will
be recommended to the board at the next general meeting.

 The intention here is that the board would unanimously
  approve anyone recommended for keyholder privileges.
  Making the event public would give recogition to the
  new keyholder.  Noted
 


Jeff Tolentino wrote:


>Jim, See my responses/comments below.  Thanks for taking the time to prepare this!
>
>
>Jeff T
>
>
>
>After reading over the Key Policy Development wiki page,
>here are my thoughts...
>
>
>Prerequisites for all keyholders:
>
>Age 18 or greater.  Good
>
>Member in good standing.  Agreed
>
>Ability and willingness to assist and/or mentor other
>Makerspace members or the public in at least one skill
>supported by the space.  Agreed
>
>Examples would be 3D printers, electronics,
>Arduino development, art projects, carpentry
>or metalworking. Good
>
>Willingness to accept the role of Davismakerspace
>representative to the community.  Good
>
>New visitors can be easily discouraged by being
>ignored or treated with annoyance or condescension.
>Keyholders would be expected to greet visitors,
>explain the resources available, and encourage
>them to attend the next meeting.  Good
>
>Signed Keyholder Agreement on file Good suggestion
>
>Another project.  I think a Keyholder Agreement
>is needed to clearly spell out the responsibilities
>of the job.  I'm willing to help develop it.  Good.  I’d love if you’d like to develop this!
>
>
>Members meeting all of the above requirements are
>also expected to contribute to the Davismakerspace
>in at least one of the following ways:
>
>Financial.  I feel that this could to be a sticking point for the group.  There have been a couple comments that monetary donations should not be a part of the key access process.  To help aid the discussion, could you expand a little on why you support the fee model?   One of the criticisms was that giving money doesn’t necessarily equal trustworthiness.
>
>A continuing level of donation.  $30 per month
>has been discussed.
>
>Time
>
>A minimum committment of 5 hours a month.  Board
>member activity would be counted towards the
>time committment as would fundraising, public
>relations and educational work.  General meeting
>attendance would not count.  OK
>
>  The 5 hours number was just pulled out of the
>  air.  OK
>
>Service
>
>At the board's pleasure, keyholder privilages
>might be granted for extraordinary service in
>support of the goals of the organization, the
>community, or the Makers movement.  Noted.
>
>
>
>Keyholder Approval Process
>
>I propose the creation of a 3 member Keyholder
>committee of board members and/or current
>keyholders.  The committee would meet in private
>with perspective keyholders, review the pre-
>requisites and either recommend or decline to
>recommend keyholder privileges be granted to
>the applicant.
>
>Committee members declining a member for keyholder
>privileges would be expected to explain their reasoning,
>offer suggestions for remedying issues standing
>in the way of keyholder status and advise when the
>member can reapply.  All information and discussion
>of declined keyholder privileges must remain confidential.
>This seemed slightly ambiguous, so I just want to clarify, the committee members would only need to explain their reasoning for denial,
>offer suggestions for remedying issues standing
>in the way of keyholder status and advise when the
>member can reapply to the proposed keyholder, correct?  Otherwise, that information would be confidential to everyone else.  Similarly, would discussion of approved keyholder privilages be public information?
>
>Members recommended for keyholder privilege will
>be recommended to the board at the next general meeting.
>
> The intention here is that the board would unanimously
>  approve anyone recommended for keyholder privileges.
>  Making the event public would give recogition to the
>  new keyholder.  Noted
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Jim Stewart <jstewart at jkmicro.com>
>To: discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:56 PM
>Subject: [dms-discuss] Key Policy thoughts
> 
>
>After reading over the Key Policy Development wiki page,
>here are my thoughts...
>
>
>Prerequisites for all keyholders:
>
>Age 18 or greater.
>
>Member in good standing
>
>Ability and willingness to assist and/or mentor other
>Makerspace members or the public in at least one skill
>supported by the space.
>
>Examples would be 3D printers, electronics,
>Arduino development, art projects, carpentry
>or metalworking.
>
>Willingness to accept the role of Davismakerspace
>representative to the community.
>
>New visitors can be easily discouraged by being
>ignored or treated with annoyance or condescension.
>Keyholders would be expected to greet visitors,
>explain the resources available, and encourage
>them to attend the next meeting.
>
>Signed Keyholder Agreement on file
>
>Another project.  I think a Keyholder Agreement
>is needed to clearly spell out the responsibilities
>of the job.  I'm willing to help develop it.
>
>
>Members meeting all of the above requirements are
>also expected to contribute to the Davismakerspace
>in at least one of the following ways:
>
>Financial
>
>A continuing level of donation.  $30 per month
>has been discussed.
>
>Time
>
>A minimum committment of 5 hours a month.  Board
>member activity would be counted towards the
>time committment as would fundraising, public
>relations and educational work.  General meeting
>attendance would not count.
>
>  The 5 hours number was just pulled out of the
>  air.
>
>Service
>
>At the board's pleasure, keyholder privilages
>might be granted for extraordinary service in
>support of the goals of the organization, the
>community, or the Makers movement.
>
>
>
>Keyholder Approval Process
>
>I propose the creation of a 3 member Keyholder
>committee of board members and/or current
>keyholders.  The committee would meet in private
>with perspective keyholders, review the pre-
>requisites and either recommend or decline to
>recommend keyholder privileges be granted to
>the applicant.
>
>Committee members declining a member for keyholder
>privileges would be expected to explain their reasoning,
>offer suggestions for remedying issues standing
>in the way of keyholder status and advise when the
>member can reapply.  All information and discussion
>of declined keyholder privileges must remain confidential.
>
>Members recommended for keyholder privilege will
>be recommended to the board at the next general meeting.
>
>  The intention here is that the board would unanimously
>  approve anyone recommended for keyholder privileges.
>  Making the event public would give recogition to the
>  new keyholder.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org
>http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.davismakerspace.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131014/60182fdd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list