833
edits
Changes
From Pumping Station One
Talk:Membership Rewards Points Vote (view source)
Revision as of 18:58, 16 October 2014
, 18:58, 16 October 2014→Class Size
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
--[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
=== Time Credits ===
Can we remove the language that mentions "time credits". I wouldn't want to give the impression that this is a tangible thing that needs to be tracked. It's one of those things that will just end up being more work for the board. Just say that time spent authorizing is cumulative, and that members claiming points need to inform the board when they have gone over the limit to earn a point. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 01:01, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
This whole section is pretty complicated. I generally prefer to implement the minimum viable language to get the job done - complicated policies mean people have to look them up frequently. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 09:33, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
=== Class Size ===
I believe I understand the motivation of issuing a point even if only a single person shows up. I am not, however, a fan of the idea. I'd rather see 3 as a minimum. It sucks when no one shows up for your event, but I also believe that member points are not the sole reason for hosting classes. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 09:33, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
I also take issue with that section. I actually take a lot of issue with making the points "automatic", without giving the board any discretion in the matter. Someone could conceivably fulfill the requirements of putting on a "class" with one person in attendance, and demand a member point in return, and without giving any discretion to the board on whether or not they should qualify, they would be forced to comply. At least add some language that says something like "it is up to the discretion of the BoD whether or not a class actually qualifies for a point." We generally try to put smart people on the board, so we should take advantage of that. ;-) [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:06, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
I'm actually opposed to 'discretion' for some things. If the policy outlines what can earn a member point, I absolutely don't want to talk about it if someone meets those requirements. There's nothing I hate more than discussing whether or not someone should receive a point for teaching a class. It's a gigantic waste of time. Make the requirements reasonable, and minimize the time investment by the board. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 10:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
Derek, I'm amenable to raising the limit somewhat. Still, I was thinking of your lighting class where you brought a large amount of equipment and only two people showed. That sucked. Would you support splitting the difference and calling it two? Justin, we have had an automatic point structure for years, and I personally haven't seen anyone abuse it. Nobody plans classes with the intent of few people showing just to make member points. While on one hand I don't want to add even more text to this, would you feel more comfortable if the Board could suspend automatic awards for members they feel are abusing the process?
--[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
