Anonymous

Changes

From Pumping Station One
no edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:  
****  Fair.  Across the board, no attendance is not lowered.  Attendance requirements are special cased where 5 people is impractical or untenable. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 18:29, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
 
****  Fair.  Across the board, no attendance is not lowered.  Attendance requirements are special cased where 5 people is impractical or untenable. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 18:29, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
   −
== Why do member points take so much board time ==
+
 
 +
== Complexity ==
 +
 
 +
Last, this part of the policy is complex for the Board to maintain. They have to decide what tools get bounties and determine the number of people authorized per point. This list has to change all the time as the space acquires new tools, and probably needs a lot of periodic reviewed. It could easily become a source of bickering. And when members claim points, the Board has a laundry list of tools and numbers to sort through. We feel it would be far simpler and far less stressful for the Board to adopt a simple policy of 3 hours authorizing = 1 point and be done with it.
 +
 
 +
=== Re: Complexity. ===
 +
 
 +
I disagree that it is too complex.  My initial estimates are just estimates, and we would definitely be willing to hear out anyone who feels that the effort required for teaching a tool should yield a different amount. I feel a large part of our role is to support area hosts. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:19, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
 
 +
=== Why do member points take so much board time ===
 
I'm seriously confused by why this has taken so much Board time.
 
I'm seriously confused by why this has taken so much Board time.
   Line 51: Line 60:  
What am I missing here? (Ryan)
 
What am I missing here? (Ryan)
   −
=== Reason ===
+
==== Why member points take so much board time ====
    
They shouldn't take as much time as they do.  That's why I want to reduce the complexity in what points are. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
 
They shouldn't take as much time as they do.  That's why I want to reduce the complexity in what points are. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
Line 152: Line 161:  
*  I'm hoping no one is trading safety for a relatively small discount on membership dues --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:57, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 
*  I'm hoping no one is trading safety for a relatively small discount on membership dues --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:57, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
   −
== Complexity ==
  −
  −
Last, this part of the policy is complex for the Board to maintain. They have to decide what tools get bounties and determine the number of people authorized per point. This list has to change all the time as the space acquires new tools, and probably needs a lot of periodic reviewed. It could easily become a source of bickering. And when members claim points, the Board has a laundry list of tools and numbers to sort through. We feel it would be far simpler and far less stressful for the Board to adopt a simple policy of 3 hours authorizing = 1 point and be done with it.
  −
  −
=== Re: Complexity. ===
  −
  −
I disagree that it is too complex.  My initial estimates are just estimates, and we would definitely be willing to hear out anyone who feels that the effort required for teaching a tool should yield a different amount. I feel a large part of our role is to support area hosts. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:19, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
      
== Classes ==
 
== Classes ==
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.