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
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)
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 ==
== Minor style suggestions ==
