User talk:Hef/Vote on Property Protection Policies

TODO

• add a liability waiver that PS:One is not responsible for damage to property used at the space.
• Change his or her to They/Their
• Add notes heavily suggesting that property in use at PS:One for an extended length of time receive an equipment page and a label
• Add language to indicate that PS:One is still able to remove property under tidy space
• Add expectation on property owners for handling property removal from the organization.
  • include notification to the membership
  • include timetable expectations, but allow for extenuating circumstances
• Add text that indicates that an owner may reclaim an item after it has been tidy spaced if the item is still retrievable. If the item has been disposed of, and retrieving it is not feasible, the organization is not responsible for reimbursement, repairs, etc.
• Add text indicating that all items are subject to tidy space
• Clean up this paragraph and add it to the language

As for restricting access, there are several reasons:

• A property owner may want to ensure that sufficient training is taking place
• The member may be using the tool or service in an abusive, damaging, or unsafe way, and needs their access revoked
• Their may be multiple tiers of maintenance, where the highest levels of maintenance are only perform able by the property owner, or by a select few the property owner has selected.

I'd treat the bullying case and harassment cases similar to any other fundamental disagreement on usage. That is, If the property owner insists on too high a level of training or over restricts utilization in any way, have the owner take the item home. If the owner doesn't do it willingly, apply tidy space to have the item removed from the space. a case that come to mind outside of harassment and bullying are that the owner insists on a training level for authorization that an area hosts feels is too high, and that the space can purchase similar equipment and apply more approachable authorization I also feel that in cases of bullying and harassment, there are repercussions available for violating the membership agreement, and would encourage anyone that feels bullied or harassed to pursue them.

Specific comments to address

• What makes a project a community contribution vs a loan to the space vs a pure personal project?
  • I believe this would be the intent of the project/property owner. I don't see a significant difference between "loan to the space" and "pure personal project". In all cases, without proper paperwork, the property is not a community contribution, and should be regarding as such taking the associated risks into account. Basically, don't use it if you need to own it and don't own it. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
• How can ownership be effectively managed and tracked so as to reduce disputes among members?
  • An EquipmentPage or similar template in the wiki would suffice. They allow both knowledge of current ownership and transfer of ownership. I Think I'll add some supporting text to suggest that but not require it. I'm afraid of people stealing because "It wasn't in the wiki" --Hef (talk)
• What authority does the Board have to set reasonable guidelines for any personal project that is installed into the common space, so as to promote safety, cleanliness, and fairness to all members, yet still encouraging the spirit of JFDI space modification?
  • I believe the "membership agreement" and "Tidy space" already cover this. Do you think there is anything left that needs to be covered that is not already in those 2 policies? --Hef (talk)
• Software and network configuration are nuanced enough that they deserve special mention - especially since there are multiple people modifying these systems over time, multiple software licenses at play, etc.
  • As for modifications of things over time, modifications and maintenance to member owned equipment doesn't "muddy the waters" it still belongs to the person that brought it in. This would apply to software as well. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
• Member personal data is nuanced enough that it deserves special mention. I believe that members' personal data needs to be protected by the Board per a strong privacy policy; that personal projects are distinct from members' personal data; and that personal projects should never put personal data at risk.
  • Agreed. An organizational privacy policy would need to be followed by anyone doing any kind of data entry related to member data, and anyone doing data entry may need to secure appropriate agreements with vendors of services. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
  • This is fairly tangential to this proposal, but it would be nice to limit how data collected in the space can be used without permission. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
  • I believe it would be appropriate for vendors to secure agreements with member's directly where appropriate. e.g. I'd like to send you an email, can I have your email address. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
  • I think that writing a privacy policy in addition to property protections is a lot of scope creep for what this proposal is trying to accomplish. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
• Clarify what happens when a member spends their own money to modify the space in a permanent manner.
  • The member should submit a written record that it is a donation, and get a donation receipt. Failing that, if they want to retrieve the permanent modification that is difficult but possible, that's fine. If it's an architectural modification, they are modifying something that has an owner (the space) and ownership doesn't implicitly transfer.
• Define a lightweight, formal process for contributing a personal project to the community.
  • I was thinking any paperwork would do, but I like your suggestion as a streamlined process in the wiki would help. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)
• Create a glossary that defines these terms formally in your proposal.
  • Which terms do you have in mind? I was thinking of dropping the phrase "project, property, or service" and just use "property" and then give a longer definition of property to include these terms, and to clarify I mean created, brought in or purchased. --Hef (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (CDT)