844
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 244:
Line 244: + + + + + + Line 256:
Line 262: + +
→Problems with Draft 3 language
== Problems with Draft 3 language ==
== Problems with Draft 3 language ==
The language, for reference:
* Members of Pumping Station: One will continue to honor contractual agreements of the space.
* All members of Pumping Station: One may curate documentation on contractual obligations of Pumping Station: One,
be it in electronic or hard copy form.
As it is written now, PS:One's members have become obligated to pay the rent, seeing as they individually must honor the contractual agreements of the space. Also, if this is supposed to eliminate the need for the insurance-related policies, it doesn't work. It only applies to members. So it follows that the guest of a member, or a non-member attending a public event, isn't bound by the organization's contracts, so they can bring their dog and get drunk after 2 AM. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (CDT)
As it is written now, PS:One's members have become obligated to pay the rent, seeing as they individually must honor the contractual agreements of the space. Also, if this is supposed to eliminate the need for the insurance-related policies, it doesn't work. It only applies to members. So it follows that the guest of a member, or a non-member attending a public event, isn't bound by the organization's contracts, so they can bring their dog and get drunk after 2 AM. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (CDT)
:: Justin, to address your second point, I agree that guests are required to follow the membership agreement. But the Draft 3 vote text does not modify the membership agreement explicitly. All it does is require members (not guests) to honor the space's contracts (which as Jason said is seriously problematic) and lets members curate a list of contractual obligations the members must follow. It doesn't somehow create House Rules that apply to everyone. It therefore only affects members and not guests. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: Justin, to address your second point, I agree that guests are required to follow the membership agreement. But the Draft 3 vote text does not modify the membership agreement explicitly. All it does is require members (not guests) to honor the space's contracts (which as Jason said is seriously problematic) and lets members curate a list of contractual obligations the members must follow. It doesn't somehow create House Rules that apply to everyone. It therefore only affects members and not guests. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
I am a little concerned by the implication of this version of the language that members are individually responsible for fulfilling the organization's obligations. I don't know if there are situations in which this policy language would cause an issue (are the policies the membership votes on binding in any context outside of our organization? I don't know), but I have to wonder what this vague assertion "gets us". --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (CDT)