Anonymous

Changes

From Pumping Station One
no edit summary
Line 91: Line 91:     
A member who authorizes 3 people on the ShopBot, 4 people on the laser, and 1 person on the welder gets zero member points. The record keeping requirements for the members are far more cumbersome than simply tracking their hours, as they have to track the number of people authorized per tool and remember to submit when, for each tool, they have reached the specific target. It is fair to assume members will be honest in their recording of hours; doing otherwise would be considered un-excellent.
 
A member who authorizes 3 people on the ShopBot, 4 people on the laser, and 1 person on the welder gets zero member points. The record keeping requirements for the members are far more cumbersome than simply tracking their hours, as they have to track the number of people authorized per tool and remember to submit when, for each tool, they have reached the specific target. It is fair to assume members will be honest in their recording of hours; doing otherwise would be considered un-excellent.
 +
 +
== The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. ==
    
The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. 3D printers are missing. Yes, the Board can add them, but then what about the Clausing lathe? Why is the wood shop entirely excluded? Does that de-value the people who authorize there? How can these numbers be considered fair when Elizabeth (used for comparison, she is clearly ineligible) has authorized 5 people on the laser in a little over 1 hour while Ryan generally takes 10 hours to authorize 5 people for the hands-on portion of the SEM?
 
The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. 3D printers are missing. Yes, the Board can add them, but then what about the Clausing lathe? Why is the wood shop entirely excluded? Does that de-value the people who authorize there? How can these numbers be considered fair when Elizabeth (used for comparison, she is clearly ineligible) has authorized 5 people on the laser in a little over 1 hour while Ryan generally takes 10 hours to authorize 5 people for the hands-on portion of the SEM?
 +
 +
== Re: The list. ===
 +
 +
You're not wrong, the tool list I added as sample text is arbitrary and incomplete.
 +
*  I am using it as a representative sample.
 +
*  I have not been able to talk to the respective area hosts about what they feel should be changed.
 +
 +
Several of the areas I have chosen are areas where I feel the existing policy is insufficient, namely cold metals, welding, and CNC.
 +
 +
The wood shop is not "excluded", just left off.  However, I am currently unaware of substantial issues with current wood shop certs, and there are motions to get an additional volunteer position opened up to increase woodshop certification bandwidth. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:19, 17 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
 +
== Safety ==
    
By focusing solely on number of people authorized, it could encourage (or be perceived as encouraging) authorizers to cut corners, which could impact quality of instruction and safety.
 
By focusing solely on number of people authorized, it could encourage (or be perceived as encouraging) authorizers to cut corners, which could impact quality of instruction and safety.
 +
 +
== 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.
 
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)
    
== Issue #2 - Classes ==
 
== Issue #2 - Classes ==
Line 112: Line 132:  
In addition to what we have stated previously, donors may be less likely to donate if they know that their donation may benefit an individual. A $10,000 grant would result in a $1500 dues reduction; in other words, 15% of the grant effectively goes to pay off a member.
 
In addition to what we have stated previously, donors may be less likely to donate if they know that their donation may benefit an individual. A $10,000 grant would result in a $1500 dues reduction; in other words, 15% of the grant effectively goes to pay off a member.
   −
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.)
+
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 ===
 
=== Seems Reasonable ===
Line 121: Line 141:  
== Issue #4 - Eligibility (Ryan) ==
 
== Issue #4 - Eligibility (Ryan) ==
   −
Elizabeth is abstaining from this point. Hef's policy makes Area Hosts ineligible for member points. This has never been PS:One policy. The policy defining Area Hosts states: "Persons serving in Area Host positions or Volunteer Positions are not eligible to earn Membership Rewards Points for performing activities that fall under the expected responsibilities of their respective Area Host positions or Volunteer Positions." This is clear, and, in my opinion, sufficient. If, say, Anna does authorizations on the Clausing lathe, that clearly falls outside her responsibilities as Electronics Area Host. Shouldn't she be eligible to receive points and then transfer them to anyone she chooses?
+
Elizabeth is abstaining from this point. Hef's policy makes Area Hosts ineligible for member points. This has never been PS:One policy. The policy defining Area Hosts states: "Persons serving in Area Host positions or Volunteer Positions are not eligible to earn Membership Rewards Points for performing activities that fall under the expected responsibilities of their respective Area Host positions or Volunteer Positions." This is clear, and, in my opinion, sufficient. If, say, Anna does authorizations on the Clausing lathe, that clearly falls outside her responsibilities as Electronics Area Host. Shouldn't she be eligible to receive points and then transfer them to anyone she chooses? (Ryan)
    
=== Rationale ===
 
=== Rationale ===
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.