[dms-discuss] 2015-08-03 DMS General Meeting Minutes
braden at davismakerspace.org
Sun Oct 4 21:43:18 PDT 2015
Attached are the minutes for the previous August 3rd meeting, and they are
posted to the website here:
-------------- next part --------------
- Call to Order
- At 19:12
- (Jeff) Was interested in some discussion with the group, just in terms of general policies, e.g.
the key policy, since there was some discontent with it from others.
- As such, this is a shortened agenda for the meeting.
- Roll Call
- All board members are here minus Jordan
- Approval of Previous Meetings Minutes
- No disapprovals
- Call for Additions to the Agenda
- (Rob) Key policy, Tim's departure?
- (Jeff) Will go into the round table.
- Officers Reports
- Sad to see Tim leave.
- Worried about its relation to key policy and discussions therein within the Key Committee
- Perhaps there are other things, but it is hard to say.
- (Bill) there might be outside projects that were really pressing on his time.
- Specifically about the keys, there seemed to be a worry about pay-to-play...
- (Bill) Hard to know what is best without some data...
- Lets hold off to Roundtable...
- Nothing to report.
- Two unusual payments
- $20 for filing the statement of purpose with the state
- Acknowledges address,
- California Franchise Tax Board wants $50
- James was negotiating about if we needed to do that as a non-profit.
- Additions to Agenda
- Explorit "Blast-Off" Event
- Rob did it last year and it was a nice bit of outreach.
- James can bring the rocket launcher, though someone needs to man in.
- Jeff might be free to help out.
- James nominates Jordan to help out.
- Continuing the above discussion.
- (Steve I) Recalling cool donations that were in the works; what happened to those?
- (James) Unfortunately, the outreach program at Intel sort of got defunded.
- (Jim) Talked with DMG Mori, seems donations are handled at the corporate level
- (Steve I) ...though DMG Mori is flying out Citrus Circuits to Japan.
- Key Policy
- We looked at the Initial Key Policy on the wiki.
- (Rob) This still seems reasonable.
- (Jim) There is a jump from using the space for oneself, versus opening the space for others.
- Perhaps there could be a more formal process, such as an apprenticeship, so people could
feel more comfortable holding hours.
- (Bill) We're small relative to e.g. the Sacramento space, there are more people at various
hours, so perhaps easier to be more easy with access
- (James) Certainly it would be nice to know a person to some degree, before giving a key,
outside of just putting down some money.
- (Rob) Perhaps revisit the sponsorship concept?
- (Jim) The Craft Center has a certification program before getting key access; something
- (Rob) Has talked with Tim since his departure, and he seems to feel the departure is good to
give some kind of breathing room.
- (James) Concurs.
- Back to key policy
- (Jeff) Difficult to handle cases where one has to reject a request in the current setup.
- (Rob) So, is the Initial Key Policy as described on the wiki what we're going with currently?
- (Jim) Perhaps a deposit?
- (Jeff) Was pondering having 3 month $30/mo donation up front... similar concept perhaps as
- (Braden) Much of what we have discussed is in the Initial Key Policy, at least obliquely.
Also in favor of allowing sponsors. Originally only had some issues with the only method to
getting keys being tied to paying dues, but this was addressed in the current Initial Key
Policy that was voted on.
- (Jeff) How about where we need to revoke a key? Initial thoughts was the board could do it
for whatever reason.
- (Jim) Was there ever an occurrence of revoking a key?
- (Jeff) No, though maybe got close once.
- (James) Probably good to have a no-strikes policy.
- (Steve I) Seems like this could cause people to feel too cautious, given what is and isn't
allowed is may be vague.
- (Jim) Likes making the distinction that the FAA does: intentional vs unintentional
violations. Intentional, you're out. Unintentional, you are forgiven, but can be made an
example of for others so they can avoid it in the future.
- (Jeff) Similar concept for his workplace.
- (Jim) Perhaps we can come up with a safety test.
- (Steve I) We are the kind of people who *want* to know the safe and good way to do things.
- (Jim) Will look around for safety policies from other makerspaces that could be appropriate
- (Jeff) Would be nice to have training on safety and use of some of the machines.
- (Steve I) A class-based system, e.g. like TechShop or Craft Center, where taking a class
gets you more unrestricted access to the equipment that the class covers.
- (Jim) Perhaps there are rare cases where a class member demonstrates their inability and
one has to have an awkward rejection.
- (Steve I) Probably not that much of a problem... probably the people who are wanting to
take classes will at least get the basics.
- (Jim) Like the library, might be good to have some proof of residency.
- (James) Such a requirement was relaxed during the initial policy discussion, but would also
like to see stronger requirements.
- (Jeff) Consensus model, does it get us blocked?
- (James, Braden) We have provisions in the bylaws to accommodate how to deal with a minority
of people blocking consensus.
- (Jim) Doesn't recall a recent argument about key policy?
- (Jeff) This happened within the key committee, outside of a meeting.
- Discussion about Key Committee disagreement on policy.
- (Rob) What about the person who wants to get a key? Is he still on hold?
- (Jeff) That is still on hold.
- Discussion of that key request.
- There were no objections to that key request in the discussion.
- (Steve I) Would be interested in teaching classes.
- (Jeff) Will summarize the discussion points of tonight into the Initial Key Policy wiki page,
and we can iterate on there and over the discuss list.
- (Jeff) One other addition.
- Anyone have a problem with not meeting next month? We haven't met on other Labor Days.
- No objections.
- End at 20:25.
More information about the Discuss