Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vote to rework membership points"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I moved this text into the main vote page --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | I moved this text into the main vote page --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == From the list == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The issue I see is that Hef's proposal seeks to eliminate the automatic awarding of points. I think this will adversely impact the organization, create more workload for the Board, and fail to meet the policy objectives that member points are supposed to encourage. (ryan) | ||
+ | * OK, I'll say it. Nobody likes exposing themselves to rejection. Having to justify one's awesomeness to the Board and ask them to consider awarding points feels... awkward. Like self-promoting and asking for a handout. People don't like to do it. (ryan) | ||
+ | ** In the current policy, we encourage member's to promote each other, and the BoD rejects very few proposals for points. I don't see any reason for this to change --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | * A mechanical model of "Do X, get Y points" is a great way to get people to do X. It takes value judgements out of the mix. For things we want to encourage, like teaching classes, running events, and doing authorizations, it is a great model. (Ryan) | ||
+ | ** I agree. I think we both feel the current policy is vague. I think we differ on execution. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | ** regarding value judgement: For the most part, the value judgements are only made when relevant, as in a new idea or activity. Once the decision is made it would be documented in the wiki. This also allows for flexibility in handling future needs of the space. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * It also makes life easier for the Board. The whole Board shouldn't need to think about it, and could probably delegate it so it doesn't take up time at the Board meetings. The Board will still need to evaluate cases that don't fit into the mechanical model, but won't be bothered with routine stuff. (Ryan) | ||
+ | ** As a Board member, and I know this is counter intuitive, but additional language adds complexity, which increases the time points take to process. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | * Hef's proposal seems like it would create more work for the Board, since there are no automatic approvals. (Ryan) | ||
+ | ** The accounting difference between automatic and non is very minimal. The current workflow works like this: | ||
+ | *** Person emails BoD | ||
+ | *** BoD has a quick vote to approve points and/or affirm that the activity gets a point | ||
+ | *** Member point award gets recorded in minutes | ||
+ | *** Member point recipient gets note recorded in CRM | ||
+ | The complexity comes in the bizarre frequency of discussion on whether or not we need to to vote, what the vote is for, and whether or not an activity qualifies as automatic, how the actions scale, If multiple people were involved, who gets the points, etc. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | * Does it include bounties for authorization, which is what Elizabeth originally wanted to address? (Ryan) | ||
+ | ** yes --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
+ | * Does it reduce the attendance number on classes? (Ryan) | ||
+ | ** Yes. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT) |
Revision as of 02:37, 17 October 2014
Brain dump:
- skip the discount - that seems like a nightmare to manage
- qualify "currently $30" with a date
- onus of claiming points MUST be on member - contact board by current method (currently info@) within 1 month of event
- expiry is hard to track --Dbever (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please get rid of the word may in the phrase "Members may be awarded Membership Points". 'May' just sounds like legalese and everyone argues about what it means. --Bry (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
Things that Get Member points
I moved this text into the main vote page --Hef (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
From the list
- The issue I see is that Hef's proposal seeks to eliminate the automatic awarding of points. I think this will adversely impact the organization, create more workload for the Board, and fail to meet the policy objectives that member points are supposed to encourage. (ryan)
- OK, I'll say it. Nobody likes exposing themselves to rejection. Having to justify one's awesomeness to the Board and ask them to consider awarding points feels... awkward. Like self-promoting and asking for a handout. People don't like to do it. (ryan)
- A mechanical model of "Do X, get Y points" is a great way to get people to do X. It takes value judgements out of the mix. For things we want to encourage, like teaching classes, running events, and doing authorizations, it is a great model. (Ryan)
- I agree. I think we both feel the current policy is vague. I think we differ on execution. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
- regarding value judgement: For the most part, the value judgements are only made when relevant, as in a new idea or activity. Once the decision is made it would be documented in the wiki. This also allows for flexibility in handling future needs of the space. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
- It also makes life easier for the Board. The whole Board shouldn't need to think about it, and could probably delegate it so it doesn't take up time at the Board meetings. The Board will still need to evaluate cases that don't fit into the mechanical model, but won't be bothered with routine stuff. (Ryan)
- Hef's proposal seems like it would create more work for the Board, since there are no automatic approvals. (Ryan)
- The accounting difference between automatic and non is very minimal. The current workflow works like this:
- Person emails BoD
- BoD has a quick vote to approve points and/or affirm that the activity gets a point
- Member point award gets recorded in minutes
- Member point recipient gets note recorded in CRM
- The accounting difference between automatic and non is very minimal. The current workflow works like this:
The complexity comes in the bizarre frequency of discussion on whether or not we need to to vote, what the vote is for, and whether or not an activity qualifies as automatic, how the actions scale, If multiple people were involved, who gets the points, etc. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)