[dms-discuss] Comments on Key Committee and digital access

Christopher Cassels christopher667 at att.net
Tue Oct 15 12:16:05 PDT 2013

With apologies to all, as I've scanned over commments, but am jumping in with a comment prior to a full reading.  I'm part of a musician's collective/co-op with shared, secured space that we use in 3-hour slots, including a LOT of very valuable gear.  We're plagued by issues related to irresponsibility with key-holders (not setting the alarm, not locking the door are the main ones, but we've had one major theft, and issues related to general courtesy--bottles and trash, not putting stuff away, etc).  Just to validate (if that was needed) that this is a really important up-front discussion.  I'd just suggest that there be a clear "violation consequence protocol"--signed in advance and agreed with a no-negotiation/excuses clause.  Mess up, lose your access.
On Tue, 10/15/13, Braden Pellett <braden at davismakerspace.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [dms-discuss] Comments on Key Committee and digital access
 To: "Davis Makerspace General Discussions" <discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org>
 Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 6:02 PM
 Hi Tim and all,
 Just to pick out one thing I wanted to ask about:
 On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:21:06AM -0700, Tim Feldman
 > We do have bylaws about eligibility for voting, so one
 possible decision method
 > would be for all eligible voters to vote on granting
 digital access to a
 > particular applicant. I don't think that would be
 responsible access, and I
 > doubt that we could get the necessary consensus. So I
 don't favor that "general
 > vote" method.
 Could you explain more about why you do not think it would
 be responsible access, and why you do not think we could get
 the necessary consensus?
 Frankly, simply in terms of the process of giving a key (and
 independent of the responsibilities of having one), I rather
 like the idea of treating it like any other resolution
 seeking consensus.  In other words, somewhat similar to
 what we did with Lucian, but with two very important
 - Like any decision, it should be specifically announced
 prior to the meeting as an item for seeking consensus, as
 stated in our bylaws about matters requiring giving notice.
 - Unlike other decisions, once we officially seek the
 consensus of the group, the keyholder in question should not
 be present, due to the obvious social pressures involved
 with possibly rejecting someone to their face, etc. 
 (Or, perhaps more generally, we could further say any
 "interested party" may not be present for that particular
 taking of consensus for that particular decision.)
 In terms of process (vs the specifics of key-holder
 requirements and responsibilities), I'm curious if and how
 others would see the above as a tenible or untenible
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org

More information about the Discuss mailing list