Changes

* AGREE!!!  100 MILLION PERCENT!  --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:AGREE!!!  100 MILLION PERCENT!  --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Skm, I agree with your analysis.  --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* The thing about having policies (however those come to be) that are in line with the requirements of our insurance coverage is that it makes it very easy to point at how we're complying with those requirements. This may not be a big deal, but it does seem like something to consider to me. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:Skm, I agree with your analysis.   --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

** Putting up something on the wiki (or website) is probably a good idea, especially since we would have something to point to.  I'd rather it not get the "policy" label until it's a membership vote, but I don't have a problem with something being posted immediately to indicate compliance. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* but it will be ludicrous if we have to make policies for every item. we haven't made a policy to ban parkour or pyrotechnics but we'd need special coverage for those which we don't have right now --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Skay, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that we need a policy for every single item that may break the law? I think that was the slippery slope argument Sparr tried to use on the list. As for making announcements without having policies, it's sort of a distinction without a difference, I think? De facto instead of de jure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't have gotten the same backlash that we did. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* I agree with Derek here and would say it is a very big deal. We can't have people drinking in the space at 3 AM claiming that it isn't a real policy so the Board can't enforce it. If the person is drinking at 3 AM, drives home, and gets in an accident, we need to prove that we weren't responsible. "Hey, see here, we enacted a policy, he violated the policy, so it's 100% on him, not us!" is our defense. We can't have someone argue "Well, it's not really a policy, so you kind of did allow the person to drink, so you share in responsibility for the accident." --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

* One of the biggest issues I've seen is that policies can be too descriptive, and then when the commitments change, the policies do not.  Why not a blanket policy that says "we will comply with facility requirements as spelled out by insurance policies" or something to that effect?  That way we are not locking in overly specific language, but showing, for the record, that we intend to comply with requirements (As Derek pointed out above).  We can further add something like "Specific requirements will be clearly posted" and then we can make signs and wiki posting clarifying what the "house rules" are. --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 08:53, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

 

* Bioguy, while I wish we could do what you suggest, we can't expect the membership to digest 100 pages of nearly incomprehensible insurance-speak as a requirement to be a member of the space. We do have a blanket prohibition in the membership agreement against breaking the law, so we don't need a policy to ban development of nuclear weapons at the space. (But there was no way to stop or change an event that was about to break the law before it happened. We have had problems with event proposals or advertisements, usually around proposed sale of alcohol or charging at the door to attend a party. In the past, talking to the organizers fixes it, but there's no guarantee.) So the areas where policy would be needed most are for things we do allow, that are excluded from coverage by insurance, that do happen or are likely to happen, and that could result in liability. People did bring their pet dogs to the space, and there has been late night drinking. Telling everyone to read the insurance policy won't stop these. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::Skay, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that we need a policy for every single item that may break the law? I think that was the slippery slope argument Sparr tried to use on the list. As for making announcements without having policies, it's sort of a distinction without a difference, I think? De facto instead of de jure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't have gotten the same backlash that we did. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Bioguy, I just saw your edit about "House Rules." Are you saying that those three Board policies could have been renamed House Rules? That's an interesting thought. But I'm not sure the people objecting to the Board having the power to create policies to address obligations would be any happier with the Board having the power to create "House Rules" that effectively get enforced as policies. Also, the justification for the Board creating policies under the Bylaws relies upon addressing obligations. I think "House Rules" that don't stem from legal or contractual obligations should originate from the membership. (E.g. the Board shouldn't create a House Rule banning country music in the shop. If the majority of the membership hates Garth Brooks, they need to be the ones to propose the vote.) --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

*Actually Ryan, my intent was to be a lot simpler than that: The policy would be (simplified language) "We have insurance, which requires house rules.  These house rules will be posted.  The insurance policy in full is filed in the safe" or wherever.  Then we have "House Rules" which are one side of one sheet of paper, which outline the three policies as they stand.  These can be distributed or posted on a wall.  This way, if the insurance changes, we don't have to create a new policy, just change the posted rules.--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::I agree with Derek here and would say it is a very big deal. We can't have people drinking in the space at 3 AM claiming that it isn't a real policy so the Board can't enforce it. If the person is drinking at 3 AM, drives home, and gets in an accident, we need to prove that we weren't responsible. "Hey, see here, we enacted a policy, he violated the policy, so it's 100% on him, not us!" is our defense. We can't have someone argue "Well, it's not really a policy, so you kind of did allow the person to drink, so you share in responsibility for the accident." --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::One of the biggest issues I've seen is that policies can be too descriptive, and then when the commitments change, the policies do not.  Why not a blanket policy that says "we will comply with facility requirements as spelled out by insurance policies" or something to that effect?  That way we are not locking in overly specific language, but showing, for the record, that we intend to comply with requirements (As Derek pointed out above).  We can further add something like "Specific requirements will be clearly posted" and then we can make signs and wiki posting clarifying what the "house rules" are. --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 08:53, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::Bioguy, while I wish we could do what you suggest, we can't expect the membership to digest 100 pages of nearly incomprehensible insurance-speak as a requirement to be a member of the space. We do have a blanket prohibition in the membership agreement against breaking the law, so we don't need a policy to ban development of nuclear weapons at the space. (But there was no way to stop or change an event that was about to break the law before it happened. We have had problems with event proposals or advertisements, usually around proposed sale of alcohol or charging at the door to attend a party. In the past, talking to the organizers fixes it, but there's no guarantee.) So the areas where policy would be needed most are for things we do allow, that are excluded from coverage by insurance, that do happen or are likely to happen, and that could result in liability. People did bring their pet dogs to the space, and there has been late night drinking. Telling everyone to read the insurance policy won't stop these. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::::Bioguy, I just saw your edit about "House Rules." Are you saying that those three Board policies could have been renamed House Rules? That's an interesting thought. But I'm not sure the people objecting to the Board having the power to create policies to address obligations would be any happier with the Board having the power to create "House Rules" that effectively get enforced as policies. Also, the justification for the Board creating policies under the Bylaws relies upon addressing obligations. I think "House Rules" that don't stem from legal or contractual obligations should originate from the membership. (E.g. the Board shouldn't create a House Rule banning country music in the shop. If the majority of the membership hates Garth Brooks, they need to be the ones to propose the vote.) --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::::Actually Ryan, my intent was to be a lot simpler than that: The policy would be (simplified language) "We have insurance, which requires house rules.  These house rules will be posted.  The insurance policy in full is filed in the safe" or wherever.  Then we have "House Rules" which are one side of one sheet of paper, which outline the three policies as they stand.  These can be distributed or posted on a wall.  This way, if the insurance changes, we don't have to create a new policy, just change the posted rules.--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

== This proposal ends up giving the Board new powers ==

== This proposal ends up giving the Board new powers ==