[dms-discuss] Initial Key Policy
jefftolentino at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 18 14:22:47 PDT 2014
I think teaching a class could be worthy of a key if it were on a periodic basis, (say weekly). If it were a one off event, then I would not see that as warrenting key access. Cleaning up after open hours seems like a task that is to small to warrent key-access (imo).
I'd also like to resubmit my favoritism for regular donations as a means for key access. This helps us maintain our infrastructure by letting us pay for rent, Internet service, etc. (Incidentally, I won't vote against this policy without a donation option, but I think we are missing an opportunity by not encouraging regular donations. It seems like we have been pretty tight on budget for most of the year, and it would be nice if we could encourage monetary donatios from people who have ability to do so.)
On Tue, 3/18/14, James R Holliday <jrholliday at davismakerspace.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [dms-discuss] Initial Key Policy
To: discuss at davismakerspace.org
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 2:01 PM
Thanks for feedback! We have until Monday before we
need to present a
"final" version for review.
> 1) I like that it attempts to set policy on why keys
will be issued.
> 2) I like the part about "hold regular open hours".
> 3) I like the part about being "free to close the door
> 4) I like the "general philosophy" section.
So far, so good :)
> 5) The "general philosophy" section says that "Everyone
in the Davis
> community should have access to the space." I note that
> CAN have access: all they have to do is show up during
the open hours
> listed on the wiki. Or they can contact one of the
volunteers on the
> wiki to arrange special hours. But they don't NEED a
key; there is no
> NEED to give a key to anybody that wants a key.
> 6) The Space has existed for a year without needing to
grant lots of
> key access. We have already proven that we can make it
> risk of giving out lots of keys. Accordingly, I think
that we should
> actively plan to protect and enhance our infrastructure
> careful to not give out keys unless they are actually
I can see what you mean. And there certainly haven't
to date been too
many requests for "off-hours" access. I think when we
the space, however, there was a sizeable group of people who
having unrestricted access to the space. Should we
proceed in a way
that preserves that (future) option, should we outline a
path that helps
promote more open hours and negates the need, or is there a
> 7) So I don't like the part about "money and/or
accepted tools" being
> a way to get a key. I think that's asking for trouble.
I agree with you: this does sound like an end-run around the
benefits in return for money" requirement. I included
point examples to be as general as possible. Perhaps
that's too general?
> 9) So I think that the only reason to have a key should
> you need a key as part of making significant,
> (not merely casual) contributions of time and effort to
I like the sound of that...
> in three ways: by being a member of the Board; or by
> and frequent open hours; or by maintaining the Space's
> 10) Accordingly, I don't think "Teach a class" or "Help
> after open house" by themselves should be reasons to
get a key.
I'm requesting others chime in here. I could see
"Teach a class"
becoming "hold regular classes" and being acceptable.
And if cleaning
up was done regularly, perhaps that could fall under
contributions of time [...] maintaining the Space's
Who else has thoughts/comments?
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Davis Makerspace Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org
More information about the Discuss