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

Nicholas Weigand ntw at davismakerspace.org
Wed Oct 16 11:12:14 PDT 2013


I'm fine with something along the lines of (1 or 2 or 3), but not
comfortable with (1 or 2 and 3) or (1 and 2 and 3).  Basically, I am ok
with some sort of policy that allows money to be part of what gets you a
key, so long as it isn't viewed as buying the key, we have the same
expectations of the keyholder regardless of how they got it, and that it
isn't a required part of getting a key.


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Emily Schleiner
<cordial.emily at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> I must say that I agree with Jim's comments. I do want to to include
> people who cannot afford a $30 a month fee through a vouching system etc.
>
> Even though the word steward is being thrown around there is no time/money
> or desire to enforce whether people are conceiving of it in the correct
> manner, by maintaining the space and doing what it's supposed to be done in
> that scenario etc. A more dark way of looking at that is a class system
> which I am not excited about.
>
> With our policy we can't please everyone ...but we can make things as
> clear and accessible as possible by having uncomplicated rules such as:
>
> 1, Attend meetings for 3 months
> 2, A member vouches for you
> 3, Pay some money each month
>
>
> Emily
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Jim Stewart <jstewart at jkmicro.com>wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> best,
>> -jim
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <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 <Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org><mailto:
>>> Discuss at lists.**davismakerspace.org <Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org>>
>>> http://lists.davismakerspace.**org/listinfo/discuss<http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.**org <Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org>
>>> http://lists.davismakerspace.**org/listinfo/discuss<http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.**org <Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org>
>> http://lists.davismakerspace.**org/listinfo/discuss<http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> __________________________________
> Emily Schleiner
> cordial-emily.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131016/1962bf50/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list