Changes

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 ==

****  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 ==

 

 

 

 

=== 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.

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)

*  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 ==

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 ===

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 ==

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 ==

* 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.

*. (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.

== Dialog ==

=== Reconsidering my stance ===

==What's the Cost?==

 

How much do we / should we spend on member points?

== What qualifies as a "class"? ==

* 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

Here's something I'm not clear on. What qualifies as a "class"?  

 

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.)

 

 

 

 

* 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, and lower the requirement case by case. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT)

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)