Anonymous

Changes

From Pumping Station One

Talk:Vote to rework membership points (view source)

Revision as of 05:46, 1 December 2014

2,317 bytes added ,  05:46, 1 December 2014
→‎Classes
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 ==
 
== From the list ==
Line 44: Line 43:  
****  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 58:  
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 65: Line 72:     
Not entirely unrelated, there are also several volunteer positions being opened up in order to address tool training issues. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
 
Not entirely unrelated, there are also several volunteer positions being opened up in order to address tool training issues. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
−
  −
== Thanks ==
  −
  −
The following was composed jointly by Elizabeth and Ryan except where noted.
  −
  −
First, we'd like to thank Hef for the effort he has spent in writing a policy that intends to make the space more awesome.
  −
  −
We'd like to avoid questions of language specifics, whether something is part of a member policy or Board-approved wiki page, etc. It seems most people in this discussion, including Hef, are on the same page regarding increasing the automatic nature of member points. What really matters is the list of what gets automatic points and who is eligible to receive them. We jointly have 3 concerns with the current policy in the Bylaws, which we do not feel are adequately addressed by Hef's policy. And Ryan has 1 additional concern with Hef's policy. If we can come to an agreement on these, we're happy to withdraw our vote and support Hef's proposal.
      
== Authorization Bounty ==
 
== Authorization Bounty ==
Line 111: Line 110:  
*  It begins to sound a lot like we are talking about wages when you want to award something hourly.
 
*  It begins to sound a lot like we are talking about wages when you want to award something hourly.
 
*  There are some areas that need more attention than others, I'm not a fan of a flat rate.
 
*  There are some areas that need more attention than others, I'm not a fan of a flat rate.
−
*  Rewards for hourly work are more likely to become expected,  I am trying to encourage people, not compensate them.
+
*  Rewards for hourly work are more likely to become expected,  I am trying to encourage people, not compensate them.  I still expect PS:One to be a community of members.
 
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
   Line 121: Line 120:  
*  I would be willing to look at this case by case.  For certain related activities it might make sense.
 
*  I would be willing to look at this case by case.  For certain related activities it might make sense.
 
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
 +
=== Requested changes for Teaching Section ===
 +
1. Under Supplementary wiki, change the Teaching section to remove all the "Authorizing X..." and "Running a Welding X..." and replace it with:
 +
 +
"Performing 3 hours of tool authorizations."
 +
 +
* I still take issue with switching to a time based model. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
** I feel it increases expectation of member points --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
** I do not feel that all authorization are of similar complexity or desirability. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
    
== The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. ==
 
== The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. ==
Line 151: Line 159:  
*  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 ==
+
== Classes ==
 +
 
 +
=== classes that don't get enough participants ===
 +
 
 +
We want to reward the effort of people who are stepping up and teaching classes. Classes posted on the calendar, MeetUp, Wiki, etc. draw new people into the space, as well as give existing members more reason to show up. It is possible for a teacher to put in the effort to prepare a class, advertise it, and still have less than 5 people show up. Ryan recalls Derek bringing a large amount of heavy and expensive professional lighting equipment into the space, setting it up, and doing a seriously awesome class that only two people attended. Under our proposal, he and anyone else in a similar situation would still get an automatic member point for the class, provided at least one person shows up, and it was advertised in advance. While Ryan did submit a member point request for Derek that was granted, he shouldn't have needed to do so. We need to reward our members for adding to the diversity of classes available at PS:One and being excellent by teaching. (Ryan/Elizabth)
 +
 
 +
==== Exceptions to the rule ====
 +
 
 +
Defining effort taken to attempt to teach a class that does not have 5 attendees is not something I want to codify.  Classes with sufficient effort, advertising, and prep usual do net 5 attendees, and as you pointed out exceptions can be made. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
 
 +
=== What qualifies as a "class"? ===
 +
 
 +
Here's something I'm not clear on. What qualifies as a "class"?
 +
 
 +
Is it someone walking through a PowerPoint and providing handouts?
 +
Or does it imply (or require?) that people actually do something hands-on with physical stuff or code or bits on a board or...?
 +
 
 +
The latter can require a lot more time on-site for the same number of people, and thus may have a much lower participation cap, especially if there is a particular machine required for part of the class.
 +
(Example: I would love a woodworking class; it's been a long time since I've used a table saw. But an "everyone make a wooden whatever" class becomes a waiting game if everyone in class needs to use the table saw, even if there are only 5 people in the class.)
 +
 
 +
thx,
 +
Ananda
 +
 
 +
==== Traditionally speaking... ====
 +
 
 +
A class has traditionally been loosely defined, and are not generally hands on.  That said, what you describe sounds awesome, I am open to rewarding preperation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
   −
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.
+
==== Another thought ====
   −
=== Re: Complexity. ===
+
Under the policy as written, the Board gets to decide how to award points, so we don't exactly need to codify this. I'd disagree that hands-on is part of the definition; classes can be both. Generally I'd say that a class:
   −
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)
+
* Is taught by an instructor knowledgeable in the subject.
 +
* People are coming to get instruction, knowledge, assistance, and/or tutoring from the instructor.
 +
* The spotlight is largely on the instructor.
 +
* There's a good chance the instructor will have needed to prepare for the class at some time in the past outside of advertising it.
   −
== classes that don't get enough participants ==
+
An event is something else on the calendar that isn't a class. Movie night, game night, etc. Again, just my $0.02, and this doesn't have to be part of the policy, and it probably shouldn't.
   −
We want to reward the effort of people who are stepping up and teaching classes. Classes posted on the calendar, MeetUp, Wiki, etc. draw new people into the space, as well as give existing members more reason to show up. It is possible for a teacher to put in the effort to prepare a class, advertise it, and still have less than 5 people show up. Ryan recalls Derek bringing a large amount of heavy and expensive professional lighting equipment into the space, setting it up, and doing a seriously awesome class that only two people attended. Under our proposal, he and anyone else in a similar situation would still get an automatic member point for the class, provided at least one person shows up, and it was advertised in advance. While Ryan did submit a member point request for Derek that was granted, he shouldn't have needed to do so. We need to reward our members for adding to the diversity of classes available at PS:One and being excellent by teaching. (Ryan/Elizabth)
+
If the person hosting "Everyone make a wooden whatever" is, say, providing plans for people, may have acquired materials, and is coaching them through making the wooden whatever, it's a class. If the person organizing it is just responsible for advertising it and unlocking the door, and the individuals are making their whatevers without help from the organizer, then it's an event. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 23:46, 30 November 2014 (CST)
   −
=== Exceptions ===
+
=== Change request for classes ===
 +
2. In that same section, for classes change "5 or more people" to a lower number. We originally suggested 1, but if 2 or 3 is needed to reach a compromise, we can support that. (Elizabeth and Ryan)
   −
Defining effort taken to attempt to teach a class that does not have 5 attendees is not something I want to codify.  Classes with sufficient effort, advertising, and prep usual do net 5 attendees, and as you pointed out exceptions can be made. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
+
* I prefer to deal with this case by case.  For classes without material preparation or that can be done completely concurrently (math, programming, writing, etc) I prefer to keep the default at 5 for most classes and first time classes, and lower the requirement case by case. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
    
== Donations ==
 
== Donations ==
Line 175: Line 212:  
This, in Ryan's opinion, could jeopardize any 501(c)(3) filing PS:One would make. "No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Inurement-Private-Benefit-Charitable-Organizations )  Non-profits can certainly provide fair compensation, so I don't believe member points as a whole are problematic. The key distinction for private inurement is the direct connection between income (the donation) and benefit (the points.)  (Ryan)
 
This, in Ryan's opinion, could jeopardize any 501(c)(3) filing PS:One would make. "No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Inurement-Private-Benefit-Charitable-Organizations )  Non-profits can certainly provide fair compensation, so I don't believe member points as a whole are problematic. The key distinction for private inurement is the direct connection between income (the donation) and benefit (the points.)  (Ryan)
   −
=== Seems Reasonable ===
+
=== Removing Donations Verbage ===
   −
Seems reasonable.  I'll nix it until we can get clarification. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
+
Seems reasonable.  I'll nix it until we can get clarification. It was in there because it was in the old policy. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
    
== Area Host Eligibility ==
 
== Area Host Eligibility ==
Line 188: Line 225:     
* Overall the lack of benefit to area hosts, and the vagueness of an area hosts realm of responsibility, I'm opting to nix the discussion altogether.  That said, If an Area Hosts comes up with a good reason to change this, I'm listening.  I mostly just don't see the point.
 
* Overall the lack of benefit to area hosts, and the vagueness of an area hosts realm of responsibility, I'm opting to nix the discussion altogether.  That said, If an Area Hosts comes up with a good reason to change this, I'm listening.  I mostly just don't see the point.
 +
*. (Ryan) Under the policy language, change the Eligibility section to remove the statement "Area hosts are not eligible for member points." There is already language in the Area Hosts and Volunteer Positions policy that will suffice.
 +
 +
=== Reconsidering my stance ===
 
* several people have expressed that they feel area hosts should be able to get points for doing stuff outside there area.  I, need to reconsider my stance on this. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 
* several people have expressed that they feel area hosts should be able to get points for doing stuff outside there area.  I, need to reconsider my stance on this. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
   −
== Dialog ==
+
==What's the Cost?==
 +
How much do we / should we spend on member points?
 +
* We allowed for $7200 or 240 member points in our 2014 budget. Any idea of how many points have already been awarded this year?
 +
*Could the board award more points than allowed for in the budget? Mskilton
   −
We appreciate that this dialogue is happening. We know this is a long e-mail - thanks for bearing with us. We know everyone wants a policy that is in the best interest of the space. (Ryan/Elizabeth)
+
So far this year, according to the board meeting minutes, we've issued 133 member points. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (CDT)
−
 
  −
== What qualifies as a "class"? ==
  −
 
  −
Here's something I'm not clear on. What qualifies as a "class"?
  −
 
  −
Is it someone walking through a PowerPoint and providing handouts?
  −
Or does it imply (or require?) that people actually do something hands-on with physical stuff or code or bits on a board or...?
  −
 
  −
The latter can require a lot more time on-site for the same number of people, and thus may have a much lower participation cap, especially if there is a particular machine required for part of the class.
  −
(Example: I would love a woodworking class; it's been a long time since I've used a table saw. But an "everyone make a wooden whatever" class becomes a waiting game if everyone in class needs to use the table saw, even if there are only 5 people in the class.)
  −
 
  −
thx,
  −
Ananda
  −
 
  −
=== Traditionally speaking... ===
  −
 
  −
A class has traditionally been loosely defined, and are not generally hands on.  That said, what you describe sounds awesome, I am open to rewarding preperation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (CDT)
 
Rdpierce
833

edits

Retrieved from "https://ps1.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/19838...20522"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information