Talk:2015 Budget Vote

Area hosts versus the membership

I understand that this is still in progress, but I'm concerned that as-written, this budget already apportions nearly a third of our projected excess funds to area host expenditures, and doesn't yet have numbers for five of the areas. I understand the desire for area hosts to have spending power to improve the space, but I generally prefer to err towards having the membership making the bulk of our decisions, through votes. Handing too much financial decision-making power to any individual starts to take the power of decision from the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbever (talk • contribs) 09:04, Dec 18, 2014

You are correct that this is still in progress. This is using the numbers that the area hosts asked for so far, not what they will necessarily get. There are certainly a few things that already need trimmed. Justin (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2014 (CST)

If I’m reading the budget correctly, the reason for the shift in resources from Member votes to Area Hosts is not to enable the Area Hosts to buy more equipment, it’s to enable them to maintain and operate the equipment we already have. As we accumulate more equipment, our ongoing costs to own and operate that equipment goes up as well, consuming a larger portion of our budget. Cumulatively, we only have $3,813.00 allocated for new tools (of which, if you dig into the budget, almost 1/3rd is simply payments on our laser cutter loan), but fully $16,384 for consumable supplies (end mills, 3d printer filament, argon gas, electronics components, etc.) and another $6,082 is simply repairs and maintenance. Assuming people have confidence in the Area Hosts’ ability to correctly forecast the needs of their areas, it seems to me that this budget is appropriate to maintain, not to substantially expand, those areas. If we want more money for member votes and new toys, it sounds like we may want to look at a hike in dues. Kyle (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2015 (CST)

You are not reading the proposed budget correctly. The proposed budget allocates a substantial portion of funds to area hosts to purchase equipment. --Hef (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2015 (CST)

You are correct. I missed the "Equipment" category (I was looking at "Tools"), as I scanned through too quickly. My new suggestion is that line items exceeding $750 require a future vote to specifically authorize, and be used merely for planning purposes. I think this is actually largely in accord with the budget as written, and would require only a slight clarifying tweak to the language (see my post to the mailing list for full discussion). Kyle (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2015 (CST)

I'd like to see the limit set to $500, but that does sound pretty good to me --Hef (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2015 (CST)

Why convolute the budget with non binding fluff. Couldn't the same be accomplished with a wiki page? Something like... "Equipment Vote Goals for 2015" People could discuss and start volunteering to write up votes and do research and so on. I just don't like fluff in a budget. Makes it too easy to miss things because TL;DR. --lucas (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2015 (CST)

SEM and other projects

I think I'd like to see the SEM (and any other similar projects now or in the future) get funds from a vote seperate from the annual budget. Putting projects that folks might not want to fund under the umbrella of the annual budget makes it difficult for members to actually make choices about how the space spends its money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbever (talk • contribs) 14:28, Dec 21, 2014

The SEM is not a member project

To be clear, the SEM is not a member project. PS:One owns it. The PS:One membership voted to accept it as a donation and pay for its moving costs back in 2013. In this regard, it is no different than any other tool PS:One owns, and supplies for it have just as much right to be in the budget as supplies for any other tool that PS:One owns. --Rdpierce (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2015 (CST)

We need to plan for things we know we'll spend money on

I understand your concerns, but I think it's pretty naive to believe that we aren't going to end up spending money on the SEM. I would much rather spend it on regular maintenance than continue to have to pay for costly repairs (as we're doing now). And if we're expecting to spend money on it anyways, I see no reason not to include it in the plan of money we expect to spend instead of pretending to ignore it. At any rate, the SEM is not actually being considered as its own department in this budget. We only have a separate sheet because we asked Ryan to make one. The SEM falls under the General Area Host budget, and as such I, as the General Area Host, choose to include it in my budget. Justin (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Member Projects Should Standalone

I feel that projects should have to defend themselves, and not be batched as part of a larger vote. The SEM is just so unrelated from everything else on this proposal.

I fully expect that things like the SEM should factor into an estimated cost of being PS:One, but member projects should not get spending authorization bundled with toilet paper and paper towels. It reeks of being a rider on a larger vote.

To the SEM people, please don't take this personally. I also argued to have a new server hardware budget be an independent vote, something I have a vested interest in. I expect the yearly financial planning to take both projects into account when planning the year, but I want spending authorization to remain in the hands of the membership and each subject to gaining general approval independent from the space's necessities. --Hef (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Mixed Messages

Including potentially contentious issues as a part of the larger budget vote makes it impossible for members to discuss those expenses and legitimately consider whether they want the organization to continue spending money on them. Saying "It's just inevitable" is disingenous and not really a valid response to that concern.--Dbever (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Discussion still works

Why would it be impossible for members to discuss these expenses? The entire budget will be made available for members to review before the vote, as per the regular vote procedure. --Sylphiae (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (CST)

It is very hard to vote no on the overall budget if you disagree with one point. The discussion of the value of putting money towards the SEM is very overshadowed by discussion over the entire budget. The discussion just won't get the time or energy the membership deserves. --Bry (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Bry, this argument could apply to any line item in the budget. If you don't personally have a use for the ShopBot, and you object to the line item for ShopBot endmills, do you vote no on the whole budget? Does there need to be a discussion on the value of putting money towards the ShopBot? If not, then why should the SEM be treated any differently? Both are tools that PS:One owns. --Rdpierce (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2015 (CST)

$500 cap on Area host purchases

I saw the $500 cap on new equipment was removed, is there an explanation for that?

I'd like to see equipment purchase decisions being made by the membership as a whole, not by individuals.

--Hef (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2014 (CST)

The language in this section was basically lifted from last year's vote, so several sentences were removed until we finalize the area hosts' role in the budget. This section is still very much in progress. --Sylphiae (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2014 (CST)

I'm saying I'd like to see it get put back in. I don't care about the literal text of the language. I'm saying I don't like the idea of taking equipment purchasing decisions from the membership. --Hef (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2014 (CST)

I'm agreeing with Hef. Area hosts are important, but the bulk of the organization's financial decisions need to be getting made by the membership at large. --Dbever (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2014 (CST)

We went with a $750 limit this year, which is what we told to the area hosts when they were making their budgets. If this hasn't already been added back into the language, it will be in just a minute. Justin (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (CST)

"Area hosts are authorized to spend up to $750 for any single capital expenditure. Any line item in the budget that goes above this limit is not authorized for purchase and will require a separate member vote. Area hosts may spend any amount to replace or repair existing tooling or machinery. Replacements must be the exact same item. Any upgrade or different tooling or machinery that serves the same purpose would require a member vote to authorize spending."

I am still not real comfortable with this wording... I understand the other side of this argument. (That a vote could keep the equipment down for too long.) I am wondering what people would think of adding something like this:

"Any spending that falls in the above two situations that the host post on the mailing list what they are going to do before spending over $300 at least 12 hours before the purchase."

This is just so the membership can speak up if there may be a desire to upgrade a piece instead of direct replacement when it brakes- Just to cite one situation that might come up. --lucas (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2015 (CST)

Hassle of a vote

"Provide area hosts with more spending power to provide better service to the membership without the hassle of passing a vote"

Voting's not a hassle - it's how the membership decides how to spend funds. Investing spending power in a tiny portion of our membership is something that needs to be done with care. --Dbever (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Voting is a hassle - there are too many fingers in the pot at vote time and everyone and their aunt has something to say about the vote. By pre-approving certain expenditure via a vote we are removing the onus of creating another vote on the area host. There is no difference on the membership voting to approve a $1000 expense now or via a vote in the future especially when the expense is known about, it makes financial sense to plan for it. Votes are unplanned ad hoc expenditure which is hard to budget for! --Amishhammer (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Everyone should have something to say - that's the point of an organization run by the members. If you want to discourage discussion of the organization's expenditures, then say that. --Dbever (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Adding large expenditures in the general budget vote also means that you are tying the fate of the general budget to the fate of the individual large expenditure. If people do not agree with the specific item, they are forced to vote no on the general budget. We need a general budget more than that specific item. --Bry (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (CST)

I'm in agreement with Bry and Derek on this. Voting is not a hassle to be avoided. Writing votes is not that hard. The area hosts answer to the stakeholder of the organization, which are the members. Justin (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Spelling Errors

The pdf has spelling errors. These really should be fixed. --Hef (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I've just fixed as many of these as I could find just now. If you know of others, please make specific references so I can find them. Justin (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2015 (CST)

No PDF

I don't like the idea of not being able to reference a section, and having to just say "the pdf" that is 90 pages. There is no practical way to reference section. --Hef (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I agree with hef that the 90 page, worst-possible-formate PDF is egregious. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I've replaced the single PDF with a zip containing a PDF for each document included with the budget. The filenames are numbered, there are page numbers inside each document, and the top of every page has the Document Name and Sheet Name on it. Justin (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2015 (CST)

Office of the CTO

The CTO shouldn't get an equipment budget. That should be done via vote. The membership has a lot to contribute when it comes to computer hardware. --Hef (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Hardware upgrades should absolutely be a member vote. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

This is the line item I am least comfortable with. It’s not clear who decides what the money is spent on, when it is spent and where the oversight is. Is this subject to area host spending limits and reporting? I’d like to see this scrapped or reworked into G&A with regular board oversight. Michael Skilton, from the mailing list.

The Office of the CTO budget is part of G&A. I will try to update the background and the language where necessary to make this more clear. That would mean that this is money that would be spent by the board. Justin (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2015 (CST)

We've updated the Background section with a note about this. No change to the language needed, IMHO. Justin (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2015 (CST)

Expenses

Zoho is included in this budget - a service we no longer use. --Dbever (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Zoho is not part of this budget, but I see that we forgot to remove it from the "Minimal Operating Expenses Plan" I will remove it from that before the language lock in. Justin (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (CST)

This has been removed now. Justin (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (CST)

The creative cloud subscription should be apportioned by Arts and CNC and come from their budgets, preferably right down the middle. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

We moved all software subscriptions and the like to the CTO Budget (which is part of G&A) since we expect that the CTO/Board of Directors will be the ones to actually spend the money and maintain the software installations. Justin (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (CST)

What is 'Concur' ? --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

An addon to quickbooks to enable expense reporting from the area hosts. This is mentioned in the language which says that "Pumping Station One will adopt an expense reporting tool for area hosts and board members to use for reporting on spending." Justin (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I've used Concur very extensively and, as an end user, appreciate its interface and mobile capability. I think this will significantly help with tracking and reporting expenses.--Bioguy (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2015 (CST)

Wood Shop

The budget currently authorizes a purchase exceeding the area hosts' capital expenditure limit. This should be pulled out and voted on as a distinct issue - the membership should have input. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I believe you are referring to the 18" bandsaw, correct? I talked to Triano about that, and he said that it is indeed intended as a replacement for https://wiki.pumpingstationone.org/Rockwell_14_inch_bandsaw so that the old one can be returned to Ed Bennett, the owner of said bandsaw. Justin (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Cash on Hand

The requirements for cash on hand have gone from $30,072 in 2014 to $76,211 for 2015. That’s a lot of money to be sitting unused. I personally like the idea of a long term capital fund but I question the necessity of that large of an amount without long term plans. Does long term planning fit our mission statement? Do we have one? -- Michael Skilton, on the mailing list

I agree that $76,211 sitting idle is probably doing the membership a disservice. I can understand increasing the $30,000 minimum we've had this year, but nearly doubling it seems wasteful. --Dbever (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (CST)

All I can really say about that is we have better information about our actual operating expenses this year than we did last year. The people who made the budget didn't have access to very much information about previous expenses since it just wasn't being tracked very well before 2014 (a big thank you to the people who got that in order this year. It made completing the budget a lot easier on us). As such, a comparison to last year's cash on hand requirements isn't really all that useful. Justin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (CST)

In 2014 the members approved approximately $52,900 in spending by member vote (excluding the 2014 budget vote). This budget lists an estimated $27,900 available for spending by member vote in 2015. I’d prefer less cash on hand and more available for member votes. -- Michael Skilton, on the mailing list.

The main differences here come from a few of things:

• As mentioned above, we have a better idea of our actual operating expenses, so we are planning better for those now.
• Taxes. We do not know how much money we might owe for back taxes/penalties, and the Board of Directors was advised by legal counsel not to discuss this, so we set aside a hopefully larger than needed amount of money to cover these difficult to plan for expenses (That covers about 40% of the difference mentioned above already).
• In this budget, we are also setting a long term savings goal to cover potential future moving expenses.

There are a few other things that contribute to that number, but these are the main points. Justin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Sufficient time for performing rigor

• There are a lot of equipment authorizations on this vote without sufficient information or rigor being performed. --Hef (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• I feel this proposal is a far cry from our usual standards on rigor. --Hef (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• Office of the CTO
  • What make and model of hardware is being considered? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What future scale should be considered? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What is 1,300 dollars for server being spent on? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
    • What make and models are being considred? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
    • What is the power consumption of said make and models? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What rack maitinance is going to be performad that costs money? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Who asked for this budget? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Is there a 20% buffer --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• I see authorization for 2 large welding equipment items.
  • I don't see this. I see an anvil, casting equipment, and air extraction as equipment in Hot Metals. Where do you see welding equipment? --Kyle (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What make and model being purchased? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • May I see the manual? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Is there a 20% room for error left other expense? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• What filters are required to keep the air safe to breath in the paint booth? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• Arts area - what is $2,500 on equipment being spent on? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • I don't see this. I only see $450 in equipment for the printer. --Kyle (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Does Arts area need a new printer? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What event type of equipment is being considered --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What make and model is being considered? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Will the purchased equipment be appropriate for usage of a hackerspace, and not just home use? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • is the equpment more than what the hackerspace will utilize? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• What furniture in the arts area is being considered? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Is there sufficient floor space for more furniture? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Is the furniture of sufficient quality? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • who is the furniture vendor? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Furniture is "6 - 8 new adjustable office chairs for seating." I assume this is likely to replace some existing seating, so I don't imagine floor space is an issue here. --Kyle (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• CNC Area
  • I'd like to see a breakdown of the $2,720 in supplies for this area --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
    • From the area budget:
      • Acrylic Sheets Acrylic for Laser Cutter Authorizations $200
      • Shopbot Endmills Various Sizes of Endmills for Shopbot $ 600.00
      • ShapeOko Endmills Various smaller endmills/engraving tools for ShapeOko2 $ 200.00
      • Shopbot Wasteboards Replacement wasteboards $ 100.00
      • Plastic Nails Plastic Nails for Nailgun $ 100.00
      • Wood for Milling Materials for ShapeOko and Shopbot Authorizations $ 200.00
      • Vinyl For Vinyl Cutter $ 250.00
      • Vinyl Transfer Tape For Finishing Vinyl Stickers $ 60.00
      • 3D Printer Filament 3mm Lulzbot Filament $ 200.00
      • 3D Printer Filament 1.75 mm Makerbot Filament $ 200.00
      • 3D Printer Filament CubePro Cartridges/ 1.75 mm filament $ 300.00
      • Tape for 3D Printer Beds Kapton, PET, Etc. $ 80.00
      • Acetone For dissolving ABS $ 50.00
      • Inkjet Cartridges Medium Format Inkjet Cartridges $ 250.00
      • Inkjet Paper Medium Format Inkjet Paper Rolls $ 60.00
      • Egg-Bot Electro-Kistka CNC Pysanky supplies $ 80.00
      --Kyle (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• What is $2,500 in equipment going to be spen on? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • $2,400 for the laser cutter loan, $100 for a shopvac for small CNC routers. --Kyle (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Can we arrange for sufficient training on new machines? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What software is required to drive the new machines? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Do the new machines require more pc hardware? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What alternatives to said hardware have been considered? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Is there a 20% buffer for error? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Where is new equipment going to go? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• What furniture for the CNC area is going to be considred? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Where is new furniture going to go? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• The woodhsop has 1k for a new bandsaw?
  • How was this amount arrived at? is a specific item being considered? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Where is it going to go? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Has anyone had a chance to comparison shop? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• Why does the Kitchen area has an advertising budget? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Meetup fees. --Kyle (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• IS garage paint appropriate for a kitchen floor? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
• The kitchen has a $1,046 budget for equipment?
  • What equipment is the kitchen going to buy? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
    • From the Area budget:
      • Hoover Vacuum To clean kitchen messes $140.00
      • Lab Coats Used to protect your street clothes from food & vice versa $ 220.00
      • Sanitizer dispenser to keep your hands clean when touching things $ 25.00
      • Other Equipment Purchases $661.00 (This could probably use more clarity, at least examples of the types of things anticipated.)
      --Kyle (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • What is the make and model of said equipment? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • May I see the manual? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • Is the equipment appropriate for usage at PS:One? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)
  • IS the equipment going to break due to normal hackerspac e usage? --Hef (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2015 (CST)

Equipment Purchase questions

There are a lot of questions above, but these are standard questions that eqipment authorizations need to be able to be defended against. For the most part, there is no exact equipment being listed on any of the equipment purchases, No links or locations of intended purchase. There is no consideration for floor space being taken into account. There are no assurances that arrangements for training of members are being taken into account. There are no assurances that people executing purchases have performed sufficient research, or are familiar with the items they are tasked with purchasing. --Hef (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (CST)

Feedback on Mailing List

"Equipment in general budget moved to votes There are quite a few line items in the area's budgets that look to me like they are equipment. I would like to see these be moved to member votes. Especially new equipment.

List:

• CTO Server and Switch upgrades - $1600
  • New equipment, especially at this amount, should be a separate vote
• Hot metals casting equipment - $1000
  • New equipment, especially at this amount, should be a separate vote
• Hot metals air extraction - $1000
  • A single line purchase at this amount should be a separate vote
• Woodshop 18" bandsaw - $1000
  • Is this replacing current equipment? Even so, this seems like too much not be its own separate vote.
• Woodshop jointer - $700
  • Even if this is replacing current equipment, this seems like too much to just be a non-descriptive line item in the general budget.
• Woodshop planer - $700
  • Even if this is replacing current equipment, this seems like too much to just be a non-descriptive line item in the general budget.
• Woodshop Mortiser - $500
  • Is this new equipment? Why isn't this a separate vote?

There are probably also others. New equipment and/or expensive equipment really should be standalone member votes.

Plaintext language The numbers that we are voting on should be in plaintext in the wiki. The pdfs are hard to manage and they are hard to change by anyone who doesn't have the source. Could we move the pdf to the background language? And put what we are voting on directly in the wiki?

Move laser loan out of CNC So, for the CNC area's sake, couldn't we put the laser cutter loan in general and administrative? Putting it in the CNC budget makes the CNC budget look larger than it actually is, especially if we were to just look at summary numbers. CNC total with laser cutter loan: $6900 CNC total without laser cutter loan: $4500

Move vote back a week The time after elections is generally used to swear in the new board and do a hand off meeting. That time is going to be essentially gone if we have to do this vote in the same meeting. I also think that the vote won't get enough discussion time if not moved back.

Certain language moved out of vote The itemized expense report language (underneath "Area hosts will be issued a expense card with...") should be moved out of this vote. If the BOD ever needed to change the way this was approached, to fit actual needs, they would have to write a vote to amend. This would take away a lot of the freedom to figure out what works. I'd also like to see more current board input on this one, as we have the experience with this and especially since the BOD would be the ones charged with implementing. The entire reporting bullet point should also be moved out of this vote. Violating vote language is really bad. If, for some reason, the treasurer takes 5 weeks to release the monthly report, they are now violating the vote. I get the intent here, but putting the language here is not safe. As well, I'd like to see more current board input on this part, as we have the experience actually managing this."-Bry

"Though I'm still new 'round here, I fully sympathize with the desire of the members to have input on purchases of new equipment. I would suggest the following clarifying language for the budget. Where it says "Area hosts are authorized to spend up to $750 for a single capital expenditure," I would add: "Capital expenditures listed in the budget exceeding $750 are advisory, and must be confirmed by a separate vote of the membership." I would strike the line "Area hosts may spend over $750 on a single item to replace or repair existing tooling or machinery" entirely, as it is totally uncapped, and could lead to controversy of what constitutes a "replacement," and whether a replacement that is also an upgrade still counts, etc.

That way we retain the clarity of what the Area Hosts expect to spend over the year (after all, most votes pass. If Triano expects to propose a vote for a $1,000 bandsaw, that vote is likely to pass and we would be well-advised to account for it in our budget). At the same time, we're still giving the membership a say in those large expenditures, by requiring the confirmation vote when Triano's got a specific bandsaw model located.

Other thoughts:

I think the laser loan is appropriate in CNC. The loan, after all, represents the cost of us owning a laser, which is quite properly a CNC item. If the CNC budget looks high, it simply reflects the reality that CNC equipment is expensive.

I agree that it probably makes sense to strike the administrative details about expense cards. It would be entirely appropriate for the Board to publish a document to the Wiki stating that this is the procedure, without locking it in via a vote.

I don't agree on striking the bit about the Treasurer's reports. Nothing in the language forbids the Treasurer from taking 5 weeks to complete a monthly report, it just states that a monthly report must eventually be completed. If the January report isn't published until June even, that doesn't appear to violate the language as written."-Kyle

"I totally agree with these points of Bry's. Actually I feel pretty strongly about them with my non-full member opinion. As for the laser... I agree it is part of CNC expense and that is no big deal in my mind because CNC is used so much more-- tho other equipment purchases are not reflected in the other area's budgets nor do I think they should.

I don't know that I even like the idea of equipment replacement without a vote. Who says the members what to replace a piece-- maybe they want to move on to something else."-Lucas

Uncomfortable with Consumables

"I'm not entirely comfortable with paying for consumables-- it seems to me that they should come out of the donation boxes in each area. But I'd like to hear what other people think about this (I'm not a voting member in any case)."-Ron B.

My take

I think it's worth keeping a close eye on consumables. In a few areas that I am aware of that have consumables that the space helps fund -- Electronics, Cold Metals, Hot Metals, I think it's been working out rather well. A while back we began suggesting to area hosts that it would be ok to keep some supplies available if it made sense to the area host. We wanted to see if it would work out well on a small scale.

• Electronics -- The area keeps a supply of available components. I think this has helped further the goals of the organization in project completion, and the ability to mass purchase at discounted prices
• Cold Metals -- The area has a supply of small stock. I think it's been useful for the membership to have small stock available, since similar stock is small quantities is prohibitively expensive to acquire and the space has better bargaining power than most individual members would. (Thanks go out to Dean for that)
• Hot Metals -- We used to require people to supply there own propane. This was highly problematic. A communal supply makes sense to me here. Additionally, communal supply of welding materials also makes sense to me
• Kitchen -- I'm not a fan of this one. Supplying snack foods doesn't seem to be in line with the organizations goals. Certain cooking components could make sense: oils, spices, seasonings, etc.
• Arts -- I don't think Arts/Crafts purchases supplies, as most people are able to purchase there entire project's material without making mistakes, and there is often a lot of donated material around. I could be convinced that some shared supplies here would also make sense
• General/G&A -- supplies may be misleading, but toilet paper, paper towels, cups, pencilsm paper, that sort of thing make sense to me.
• Tool Cage -- Not sure what would be a "supply" here, other than nails/screws. Actually, a supply of nails/screws does make sense.
• Woodshop -- Supplying raw wood would be difficult to manage. I wouldn't be opposed to a trial run.
• CNC -- We supply filament and vinyl. I suspect that if we didn't, we would have the same propane problem -- where do we put all of these partially used collections of material that we can't use? For large projects, people still bring in there own supply.

Something to consider, it is worth watching the source of raw materials, we should keep paying attention to who receives monetary benefit from the space.

In All the areas, I think that the onus of supplying all/any of the raw material for projects should be on the member and not the space, (exception: Hot Metals welding supply). It has just been really helpful for members' to have the extra parts that they didn't know they needed.

--Hef (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (CST)