Talk:Vote to rework membership points

Brain dump

• skip the discount - that seems like a nightmare to manage
  • removing, it has not been successfully in the past --Hef (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
• qualify "currently $30" with a date
  • I am going to remove it entirely --Hef (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
• onus of claiming points MUST be on member - contact board by current method (currently info@) within 1 month of event
  • Noteing onus on member --Hef (talk)
  • ignoring 1 month, as the practice is up to the BoD --Hef (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
• expiry is hard to track --Dbever (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Please get rid of the word may in the phrase "Members may be awarded Membership Points". 'May' just sounds like legalese and everyone argues about what it means. --Bry (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
  • done --Hef (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

Things that Get Member points

I moved this text into the main vote page --Hef (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

From the list

• The issue I see is that Hef's proposal seeks to eliminate the automatic awarding of points. I think this will adversely impact the organization, create more workload for the Board, and fail to meet the policy objectives that member points are supposed to encourage. (ryan)
• OK, I'll say it. Nobody likes exposing themselves to rejection. Having to justify one's awesomeness to the Board and ask them to consider awarding points feels... awkward. Like self-promoting and asking for a handout. People don't like to do it. (ryan)
  • In the current policy, we encourage member's to promote each other, and the BoD rejects very few proposals for points. I don't see any reason for this to change --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
• A mechanical model of "Do X, get Y points" is a great way to get people to do X. It takes value judgements out of the mix. For things we want to encourage, like teaching classes, running events, and doing authorizations, it is a great model. (Ryan)
  • I agree. I think we both feel the current policy is vague. I think we differ on execution. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
  • regarding value judgement: For the most part, the value judgements are only made when relevant, as in a new idea or activity. Once the decision is made it would be documented in the wiki. This also allows for flexibility in handling future needs of the space. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

• It also makes life easier for the Board. The whole Board shouldn't need to think about it, and could probably delegate it so it doesn't take up time at the Board meetings. The Board will still need to evaluate cases that don't fit into the mechanical model, but won't be bothered with routine stuff. (Ryan)
  • As a Board member, and I know this is counter intuitive, but additional language adds complexity, which increases the time points take to process. --Hef (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
  • Regarding evaluating cases that don't fit into the mechanical model: I'd like those evaluations to change the mechanical model as they arise. --Hef (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
  • Currently, delegating points doesn't work do to crm restrictions. I'd like to change that with technology in the near future. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
• Hef's proposal seems like it would create more work for the Board, since there are no automatic approvals. (Ryan)
  • The accounting difference between automatic and non is very minimal. The current workflow works like this:
    • Person emails BoD
    • BoD has a quick vote to approve points and/or affirm that the activity gets a point
    • Member point award gets recorded in minutes
    • Member point recipient gets note recorded in CRM

The complexity comes in the bizarre frequency of discussion on whether or not we need to to vote, what the vote is for, and whether or not an activity qualifies as automatic, how the actions scale, If multiple people were involved, who gets the points, etc. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

• Does it include bounties for authorization, which is what Elizabeth originally wanted to address? (Ryan)
  • yes --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
• Does it reduce the attendance number on classes? (Ryan)
  • Yes. --Hef (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2014 (CDT)
    • I don't see that. The supplemental wiki page lists 5, same as the existing policy. (Ryan)
      • Fair. Across the board, no attendance is not lowered. Attendance requirements are special cased where 5 people is impractical or untenable. --Hef (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2014 (CDT)

Why do member points take so much board time

I'm seriously confused by why this has taken so much Board time.

You can give someone a Member Point for any reason. Saying yes to requests should be trivial. The only time you need to examine the rules is if the Board wants to say no. And I didn't think that was common.

What am I missing here? (Ryan)

Reason

They shouldn't take as much time as they do. That's why I want to reduce the complexity in what points are. --Hef (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

Do points work

Do we have any evidence that people are actually motivated by member points? (Ron Bean)

Not directly

No direct evidence, no. People do claim them, and a few people teach regular classes in order to claim them every month.

Not entirely unrelated, there are also several volunteer positions being opened up in order to address tool training issues. --Hef (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

Thanks

The following was composed jointly by Elizabeth and Ryan except where noted.

First, we'd like to thank Hef for the effort he has spent in writing a policy that intends to make the space more awesome.

We'd like to avoid questions of language specifics, whether something is part of a member policy or Board-approved wiki page, etc. It seems most people in this discussion, including Hef, are on the same page regarding increasing the automatic nature of member points. What really matters is the list of what gets automatic points and who is eligible to receive them. We jointly have 3 concerns with the current policy in the Bylaws, which we do not feel are adequately addressed by Hef's policy. And Ryan has 1 additional concern with Hef's policy. If we can come to an agreement on these, we're happy to withdraw our vote and support Hef's proposal.

Issue #1 - Authorization Bounty

This is an area of importance to Elizabeth, who wants to ensure an adequate number of authorizers in the CNC Area to keep up with the high demand. The Board's recent call for a Volunteer Position for this area recognizes the need, but one additional person with a dues credit would still be inadequate to handle the workload without burnout. We need a lot of people stepping up here, and a way to make sure they *all* are acknowledged and rewarded.

Hef is misreading the intention of our proposal. "instead of saying all certs over 3 hours get points" is untrue. The intent (and apologies if it wasn't clear from the text) is that this is cumulative. Once a member accumulates 3 hours, they contact the Board and claim a point. Any extra authorization time rolls forward. Example:

Week 1: Authorize 6 people on the laser, 2 hours. Week 2: Authorize 2 people on the ShopBot, 2 hours. [Send e-mail to info@ and receive 1 point, 1 hour rolls forward] Week 3: Authorize 7 more people on the laser, 2 hours. [Send e-mail to info@ and receive 1 point.]

We want to state again that the intent is *not* to devalue anyone. It is to value *everyone* who does authorizations by making sure that they have access to member points easily and clearly. We feel that basing this on the time the authorizer spends is the most fair method, recognizing that each machine has very different authorization needs, some work best for groups and others work best for one on one, etc. And we feel this is, by far, simpler for the Board to administer. While we aren't attached to the exact exchange rate, we figured something working out to $10 in benefits per hour is fair and has precedent considering the Board is asking for volunteer positions that pay $40 in benefits for 4 hours work per month.

Hef's proposal concerns us for a number of reasons:

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. 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?

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.

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.

Issue #2 - Classes

We want to reward the effort of people who are stepping up and teaching classes. Classes posted on the calendar, MeetUp, Wiki, etc. draw new people into the space, as well as give existing members more reason to show up. It is possible for a teacher to put in the effort to prepare a class, advertise it, and still have less than 5 people show up. Ryan recalls Derek bringing a large amount of heavy and expensive professional lighting equipment into the space, setting it up, and doing a seriously awesome class that only two people attended. Under our proposal, he and anyone else in a similar situation would still get an automatic member point for the class, provided at least one person shows up, and it was advertised in advance. While Ryan did submit a member point request for Derek that was granted, he shouldn't have needed to do so. We need to reward our members for adding to the diversity of classes available at PS:One and being excellent by teaching.

Issue #3 - Donations

While in general we are in favor of an automatic relationship between actions and member points, this is one area that we feel should be an exception.

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.)

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?

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?

We appreciate that this dialogue is happening. We know this is a long e-mail - thanks for bearing with us. We know everyone wants a policy that is in the best interest of the space.

Elizabeth and Ryan