833
edits
Changes
From Pumping Station One
Talk:Authorization Policy Vote (view source)
Revision as of 05:44, 24 February 2015
, 05:44, 24 February 2015→Ambiguity - Constraining authority for granting exceptions
Under the draft policy, it's technically possible for the Board to overrule an Area Host, and the Area Host overrules the Board, and the Board overrules the Area Host, etc. But practically, this would be a stupid move for the Area Host because the Board would likely remove the Area Host from office. I felt this situation was unlikely enough that it wasn't worth complicating the policy by setting up a more complicated decision making structure with escalation. I'm interested in hearing opinions on whether this is the right call. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)
Under the draft policy, it's technically possible for the Board to overrule an Area Host, and the Area Host overrules the Board, and the Board overrules the Area Host, etc. But practically, this would be a stupid move for the Area Host because the Board would likely remove the Area Host from office. I felt this situation was unlikely enough that it wasn't worth complicating the policy by setting up a more complicated decision making structure with escalation. I'm interested in hearing opinions on whether this is the right call. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)
I'd say keep it simple.--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 12:44, 14 February 2015 (CST)
== Ambiguity - Constraining authority for granting exceptions ==
== Ambiguity - Constraining authority for granting exceptions ==
I agree that the powers granted are extremely broad. But I believe keeping them is helpful because it encodes the intent of the policy within the policy itself. Five years from now, people may not remember *why* a given policy was written in a particular way. If the policy carries no constraints, a well-meaning Area Host could reasonably conclude that there isn't anything wrong with letting their non-member buddy spend an evening using our laser cutter. A well-meaning Area Host probably wouldn't grossly stretch definitions to allow this same situation with the policy as written. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)
I agree that the powers granted are extremely broad. But I believe keeping them is helpful because it encodes the intent of the policy within the policy itself. Five years from now, people may not remember *why* a given policy was written in a particular way. If the policy carries no constraints, a well-meaning Area Host could reasonably conclude that there isn't anything wrong with letting their non-member buddy spend an evening using our laser cutter. A well-meaning Area Host probably wouldn't grossly stretch definitions to allow this same situation with the policy as written. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)
My concern with the ambiguity is the communication as to when an exception has occurred. For example: said well-meaning area host grants an exception to a non-member, for acceptable reasons as defined as policy. How is this documented / communicated, in case of a situation where the equipment / tool subsequently requires repair? It is one thing, when a member is authorized for use and documented on the wiki - very easy to track down an individual in case something goes awry. However, it is another thing entirely when the exception is not documented, especially for problemsolving and root cause analysis, when it is unknown except to one individual who has been granted an exception-authorization. In the case of a one-time occurrence of a non-member usage exception, I would suggest wording that the area host identify and communicate in some way the exception-authorization, such as: document on the wiki page as a "non-member exception authorization" / report said occurrence to the board / document in board meeting minutes / or otherwise identified in some way. I will defer to the board as to the appropriate communication method, only that some communication method occurs.--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (CST)
Bioguy, that's a different concern than the person who raised this initially. These exceptions are going to be rare. In the case of a repair person, we may not even know in advance the name of the person dispatched, so the Area Host may need to give a "blank check" exception to whoever Epilog sends out. So I'm hesitant to want to add more required procedures around this. The real question in my mind is that if the Area Host is asked why X person is using a tool without being a member listed on the Wiki, the Area Host can say "Oh, that's the master blacksmith who was teaching a class." or "Yeah, that was the guy from Inventables who was installing limit switches on the ShapeOko." Also, member tool usage today has virtually no traceability. Having a list of authorized users does us little good in determining who broke X tool. There is value in listing authorizations on the wiki, such that any member can check to see if the person using the tool is authorized. But in the case of an exception, it should be very clear anyway, e.g. a class advertised on the calendar, or the person is clearly servicing the tool. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:26, 22 February 2015 (CST)
I think recording in the wiki would be great. Just a page like [[Tool Authorization Exceptions Record]]. It could just have a table that has who and why and the person that authorized them. I see value in something like this that bioguy is suggesting and it would be an after the fact thing. Kinda like posting to the list when you brake something. It helps every one learn and keeps a record. I would prefer a wiki page over just a post to the list because it is easier to go back and look at and easier to organize. --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (CST)
I'm hesitant to tie Area Hosts' hands by creating policies so specific that problems inevitably happen requiring more voting to correct them. For example, the original policy required that every authorized user be listed on a physical list located on the tool. That turned into a really bad idea, and as a result we blatantly ignored our own policy. Personally, I prefer to let Area Hosts handle authorization exceptions in whatever way they deem best, which may be the Wiki, the mailing list, listing them in the same way maintenance records for the tool are recorded, etc. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (CST)
== Minor style suggestions ==
''Currency'' is not idiomatic for this meaning. I suggest replacing it with ''recency'' or ''expiry'' or ''expiration''. --[[User: Skm | Skm]] ([[User talk: Skm |talk]]) 09:14, 14 February 2015 (CST)
Mike, you had me worried there.... The term "currency" gets used a lot in the aviation community. As in, "I'm not night current, so I can't carry passengers at night. The night currency requirements are having done three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop in the past 90 days at night." I was wondering if this was just aviation jargon, but I'm actually seeing this as valid usage in a number of dictionaries, such as:
* The time during which something is in use or operation: no claim had been made during the currency of the policy. Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/currency?searchDictCode=all
* the quality or state of being current : currentness Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/currency
* the state of being commonly known or accepted, or of being used in many places: The idea that computer use enhances students’ motivation has gained currency in recent years. Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/currency
The aviation concept is exactly what I'd like to express here with tool authorizations, although at present nobody is doing it because we don't have the technical ability to track it. This could change when we add RFID power locks for tools. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:10, 22 February 2015 (CST)
