New Keyholder Member



  • Motion

    Edit
    Based on the feedback below, I am updating this motion to allow fast tracking keyholder membership for existing active community members who have not been a drop-in member. As @tinfoilknight suggested I would like the requirement for new keyholder membership to change to:

    To become a keyholder membership you must have been either a drop-in member for 3 months or have been actively involved in our community for 6 months.
    Community involvement condition is satisfied if at least two existing members vouch that the new member has been involved for 6 months

    Here is why I am proposing this motion:

    I would like to vouch @Cindos (Mark) to become a keyholder. Although mark has only been a drop-in member for one month, he has been involved with makerspace for a long time. He has the Laser cutting 101 and the Vinyl cutting 101 badges and has been a member on the forum for over a year. I feel that he will be a great fit, so I would suggest that we fast track his keyholder membership.

    please reply to this topic stating your position so hopefully we do not have to wait until the meeting.


  • Member

    I certainly have no issues with Mark becoming a keyholder :)



  • We did tell one other person that they had to be a member for three months first. I don’t want to see this become about fast tracking well connected members. If the 3 month wait isn’t working then we need to upgrade the policy. There are already enough hurt feelings without adding queue jumping to the list.



  • @tinfoilknight I might be misreading your post, but are you suggesting we update the rule to reduce the wait time as opposed to making an exception?

    We can also formalize the process of applying for fast track membership? It certainly would not be bad for us in cases such as this where some members are familiar with the new candidate and can vouch for them.

    I agree that we should update our process to allow cases such as this.



  • @arasbm that’s exactly right. I would prefer not to make exceptions. The rule either reflects the will of the membership or it needs to be worded differently. Perhaps it could read 3 months membership or 6 months makerspace community involvement.


  • Linux

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12cVD2MpBB9gUXD53uOb2QeDOh6WekGqysQC9maDoKeM/edit?usp=sharing

    SOPs 8 and 9 might be relevant, and should be adjusted as needed. We may also need an additional specific SOP on introducing new members to the space.

    Learning and working on learning more!

    1


  • @tinfoilknight 3 months membership or 6 months makerspace community involvement sounds much better to me. I will update my motion to reflect that.

    @hdsheena said:

    We may also need an additional specific SOP on introducing new members to the space.

    I agree. It is critical to our growth to know how to introduce and welcome new members to the space. So I just started a stub for SOP #16-011 based on the membership responsibilities SOP.



  • @tinfoilknight do you find the changes I make to the motion satisfactory?

    If you are an existing member, please let me know if this is ok with you or not.



  • Almost. The six months should be of in person involvement. We want to know if the person is a good fit. It’s hard to tell from an online presence how well this person will get along with others.



  • Ok thanks for all your feedback @tinfoilknight @hdsheena and @Chainmaildave

    I told Mark today we could not make a decision about this quick enough to make him a key holder for this month. Instead he will be a drop-in member for another two months so that there is no issues.

    It seems that no matter how much we try to create a rule here much of it would be left up for interpretation. If we do not feel comfortable giving that kind of decision making power to existing key holders, then I don’t think this will work. I am going to call this motion rejected since I did not see enough support. I am not interested in perusing this further, but if someone else wants to work it out and bring people on the same page, go for it!



  • Hello all.
    Sorry I have not been around, we are getting ready to move to Victoria.

    I wanted to give some input on this topic, as I feel if there is not a category that honours the contribution by new members of extremely valuable equipment (say over $1000 valuation) by shortening the time of key access to say 1 month, and perhaps doing a criminal record check, and a security deposit on a credit card. Having inviting policies can prevent Makerspace from shooting yourselves in the foot, when good people walk out the door, as the primary goal is building community, and creating opportunity for makers.

    I believe that there are some extremely skilled people attracted to the idea of Makerspace at this point in time, but if they need to wait 3, or 6 months to have access and use of their own extremely valuable equipment your policy will become a major deterrent in attracting skilled members, with equipment. Large donations are an obvious commitment to makerspace policy and philosophy, and should be viewed as such.

    I also think that it would be important to have a policy of allowing owners to provide the training on correct usage, maintenance and trouble shooting to enable other users. Similar to CNC router 101. Not all donators will care, but they should be presented with the option.

    I cannot imagine anything worse than being dependent on a piece of equipment that you donated only to need it and have it be out of service, or irreparable.

    Nothing to gain personally, just believe that policy needs to be manipulated in the early stages to build a community of skilled makers willing to share expertise and thus create opportunity for all members of makerspace.



  • @heather I think this all started with the problem that we were signing up keyholders and having them not stay with the makerspace. There are some keys held by these people that haven’t shown up again. In reaction to this we decided to make a 3 month wait period as a way to test the dedication of the person wanting to be a keyholder.
    Since then we have had at least two people we have told to wait before becoming a keyholder and this motion was about fast tracking the second one. The first person we told to wait shouldn’t feel slighted that we didn’t make an exception for them as that person would also be a great new member to have.
    Getting the key fob system working will make it easier to change this rule as it won’t matter if spare key fobs are in circulation as we can cancel those electronically.
    I don’t want to ask for record checks because I don’t think its fair. We probably already have members with records and that is their own personal business. It may not even be legal to ask. Deposits are a burden to people with limited cash or no credit. We would have to be willing to go to court over it in a dispute.
    Then there is the case where a person wants to bring some new equipment that would bring new capabilities to the space. That’s a tough one. Most of the time it would work out best for everybody. Sometimes we would get someone that would have a negative impact on the space. I think the waiting period gives us a chance to evaluate someone without having to change the locks in a hurry. The key fob system may help limit the damage.


Log in to reply