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

Jim Stewart jstewart at jkmicro.com
Wed Oct 16 10:25:07 PDT 2013


After a very successful Youngmakers meeting
last night, I've decided to focus most of my
volunteer effort with them and back away from
Davis Makerspace policy discussions.

I'm still happy to help or work with anyone
on focused, results-oriented projects.


Jeff Tolentino wrote:
> Hi All
> Based on a few of the emails that came through this week, there seems to
> be 2 factions here that are stalling out the policy developement (ie,
> the service- verses the donation-based models).  In my opinion, both are
> equally valid, but somewhat different philosophically.
> Since both sides are somewhat entrenched down a bit, could we
> mutally accept both approaches and construct a policy that includes both
> service and monetary donations together, (i.e. one could gain key access
> by either contributing service or by donating or both).  I think both
> sides feel strongly about thier own preferred method, so constructing an
> either or policy may be difficult to achieve.  However the space could
> use both volunteer efforts and donations.  We could still implement a
> security/approval/responsibilitly process for both approaches as needed.
> Would anyone out there be absolutely against preparing a policy that
> includes both approaches?  If so, why?
> Jeff T
> *From:* Braden Pellett <braden at davismakerspace.org>
> *To:* Davis Makerspace General Discussions
> <discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [dms-discuss] Comments on Key Committee and digital access
> 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 wrote:
>> 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 additions:
> - 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 method.
> Thanks,
>    Braden
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org <mailto: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

More information about the Discuss mailing list