Talk:Vote For Injection Molding Machine

Sponsors

This vote needs a full member to be a sponsor. As of the writing of this comment, the only sponsor is Alex, who is listed as a Starving Hacker on the member site. If this is incorrect, we should probably make sure his status on the member site gets updated before the vote is announced. If he really is a starving hacker, he'll either need to become a full member before putting this vote forward, or he'll have to get another full member to sponsor the vote. --Justin (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

Text of vote page

I'd like to see a candidate machine in the background section. --Dbever (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

Where does it go?

What will the power and space requirements be? Have we already identified a good place for this machine to live? Will the fairly dusty environment of the shop pose problems? If it can't go in the shop, is it prohibitively loud/smelly/unpleasant to be around? The upstairs isn't suitable for equipment of that nature. --Dbever (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

Authorized funds

Does the authorized amount include the cost of shipping and other related costs to getting this thing up and running? Is there at least a 20% buffer in the funds allocated to help account for unexpected expenses related to this vote? This would be easier for us to see if you included a candidate machine in the background section like Derik requested. --Justin (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

Short timeline

This seems like a really short timeline between creating the vote page and locking in the language. Keep in mind that the language of the vote needs to be locked in 5 days before the actual vote happens, and we won't be able to change it once the secretary starts asking people to vote on it. I realize some of this discussion already happened on the mailing list, so I expect most of the discussion here would just be to improve the vote/language itself. --Justin (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

Speaking of short timeline, as the vote is written there is only about 1.5 months between when the vote passes and when the authorization for funds expires. I think this is rather short. Personally, I generally forgo the expiration of vote funds entirely in the language (expecting they'll get expired at the next budget vote if necessary), but if you do want to include an expiration, I think 90 days would be more appropriate. --Justin (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2015 (CDT)

I also came here to voice concern about the short expiration of the spending authorization. Given that many of the details of the vote are still up for discussion, I would like to see a tentative date for 2-3 months after the vote is scheduled to be voted on, the actual date can be set when the language is locked in. --Kuroishi (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2015 (CDT)