The minutes do reflect people agreeing that it was submitted as one proposal that is not what I am confused about. My questions are: 1) Should it be one proposal. I view this as two different issues. Dues are a recommendation to the Board, Keys are a modification of our operating procedure decided by the membership. 2) Was this proposal passed? I have serious moral reservations on its wording which I expressed above and made suggestions to make the proposal acceptable. Until this weeks minutes there was no indication that anyone had read Torrie's email, or mine sent shortly after.
regards, Andrew L On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Philip P. Patnode <ppatn...@gmail.com>wrote: > Becca, > > Thank you! > > I will ponder the details and ramifications of the proposed proposal and > submit it in writing within 24 hours. > > Of course, I will add at least three good reasons for the membership to > consider as they discuss and vote/consense on the issue. > > I hope this proposal can be brought up for discussion at the meeting on > Tuesday, April 29th, considering it has been under informal discussion for > about six months. > > Have good weekend. > > Philip > > Philip > > Philip > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Becca Salchak <blsalc...@yahoo.com>wrote: > >> Yes Philip I will third it >> On Apr 25, 2014 9:08 PM, "Philip P. Patnode" <ppatn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Becca, >>> >>> Thanks for the reply and clarification of the details surrounding >>> membership, dues, and key access. >>> >>> About the geezer discount - >>> >>> I will submit a formal proposal to "propos...@synhak.org" (and a copy >>> to this list too) this weekend to reduce the membership fee for active and >>> prospective members who are age 62 or more to $25 per month. >>> >>> Devin Wolfe has agreed to second the proposal. >>> >>> Can you offer a 3rd motion to accept the proposal or should I ask >>> someone else? >>> >>> Philip >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:28 PM, a l <leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> There is a reply from Becca that displays on my phone but not my laptop >>>> so I hope this message get put in the proper context. >>>> >>>> Becca, >>>> The minutes do not reflect any consent on family dues nor restricting >>>> keys to minors. They do reflect consent on issuing Robert a key. >>>> I asked for clarification on the discussion that was conducted >>>> surrounding this proposal and the response was: >>>> The wording had not been changed, no one saw this as two separate >>>> issues, and that it was still an open proposal. >>>> >>>> If anyone else remembers differently than the minutes reflect please >>>> speak up. We need to have accurate minutes especially since we operate on a >>>> "mailing list or it didn't happen" basis. >>>> >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> Andrew L >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Philip P. Patnode >>>> <ppatn...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> TWIMC at SH, >>>>> >>>>> Since I have been isolated on my private island for the past week or >>>>> so, I may have missed some details. >>>>> >>>>> If anybody is interested, here is my position and thoughts on several >>>>> of the points under discussion about membership, dues, and key access. >>>>> >>>>> dues >>>>> >>>>> * regular rate of $35 per month for anybody over age 18 >>>>> >>>>> * discount rate for families - $35 per month for first adult, plus $15 >>>>> per month for each additional person over age 18, plus $5 per month for >>>>> kids under age 18 >>>>> >>>>> * discount rate for high school and college students - $15 per month >>>>> >>>>> * discount of 10% off the monthly amount for pre-payment of 3 or more >>>>> months for any membership, paid in advance >>>>> >>>>> What happened to the long-discussed "senior discount"? I brought up >>>>> the issue way back in Oct or Nov at one of the first weekly meetings I >>>>> ever >>>>> attended, but no definitive action has ever been taken. >>>>> >>>>> *I suggest that a senior discount be established at the rate of $25 >>>>> per month. * >>>>> >>>>> *membership* >>>>> >>>>> * should be open to all, with exceptions, subject to approval by the >>>>> existing membership >>>>> >>>>> * should be denied to illegal immigrants, convicted felons, known drug >>>>> users, and anybody on the Ohio/any other state sex offenders list >>>>> >>>>> * should be suspended for members who have not paid their dues after >>>>> 30days and rescinded permanently if the dues are not paid after 90days. >>>>> >>>>> *key access* >>>>> >>>>> * should be available to all active members (over age 18) in good >>>>> standing, on written request and after a discussion of the request at a >>>>> weekly meeting, with an open vote or consensus by members present >>>>> (unanimous vote required) >>>>> >>>>> * should be available to one or both of the parents/guardians of an >>>>> active member under age 18 in good standing - the member can have the key, >>>>> but can only use it when accompanied by their parent or guardian >>>>> >>>>> * should be immediately rescinded and the key recovered from any >>>>> member who fails to lock the building (front door and/or garage door) on >>>>> exit, if they are the person responsible for closing the space >>>>> >>>>> * should be immediately rescinded and the key recovered from any >>>>> member who shares the key with anybody else not authorized to have key >>>>> access >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> I am in full agreement with the comment by Andrew about minors and >>>>> their parents/guardians while at the building. A minor should never, ever >>>>> be left alone in any area of the space (except the bathroom), but must be >>>>> under constant supervision by the parent or guardian or a member (as >>>>> chosen >>>>> or approved by the parent or guardian). Members present should not be >>>>> expected or encouraged to "babysit" the younger members while the parent >>>>> is >>>>> outside smoking/chatting/stargazing or engaged in their own project, >>>>> ignoring the kid. >>>>> >>>>> For example, if Robert (age 7) would like to have a 2x4 sawed in half >>>>> on the chop saw, I would be happy to do it for him, subject to approval by >>>>> Rob or Jenny. If Robert wants to help paint a wall, I would be happy to >>>>> have him on the painting team while Rob or Jenny is off doing something >>>>> else. >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to reply or comment in person. I am always open to >>>>> suggestions and constructive criticism. >>>>> >>>>> Philip >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:39 PM, a l <leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> No one has any input on my suggestions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Andrew L >>>>>> On Apr 16, 2014 6:52 PM, "a l" <leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This seems like two unrelated proposals: Family dues discounts and >>>>>>> Key access to minors. Perhaps I just misinterpreted formatting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't organize my words to reflect my thoughts at the time, but >>>>>>> the idea of 'grandfathering' in a key that hasn't even been approved yet >>>>>>> rubs me the wrong way. I agree that changing the rules after the fact is >>>>>>> unexcellent and as they are written now there are no restrictions on >>>>>>> keys >>>>>>> beyond being a member of good standing who has demonstrated >>>>>>> trustworthiness. The discussion surrounding key holders was brought up >>>>>>> due >>>>>>> to concerns(that have largely been satisfied). This isn't about >>>>>>> grandfathering. We are making an exception. >>>>>>> Related to approving keys for one minor before instituting an >>>>>>> age requirement with no cause. This suggest one of two scenarios: 1) we >>>>>>> don't trust minors and their guardians to act responsibly but no one >>>>>>> wants >>>>>>> to be the one to say no. 2)Somehow we trust this minor and guardians and >>>>>>> believe that no one else could ever be as responsible as they are. That >>>>>>> members who helped start SynHak and their children(should their child >>>>>>> want >>>>>>> to pursue membership and keys) could never be as responsible. >>>>>>> Either every minor can be trusted with a key or none can and we >>>>>>> have to force the guardians to go through the appropriate processes. We >>>>>>> trust minors enough to give them full membership status empowering them >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> vote on how to spend money and who the board and officers are. They are >>>>>>> even(currently) eligible to run for these positions themselves. So long >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> they have proven they can fulfill the requirements as outlined in the >>>>>>> current rules why should they not be granted a key? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not against responsible people having keys. I just want >>>>>>> uniform rules. To that end I have some suggestions for this discussion. >>>>>>> All minors may be assigned keys >>>>>>> Legal guardians must be in the same room as them while operating >>>>>>> power tools, heated tools, or other hazardous tools. >>>>>>> 0 Tolerance for both the minor and the guardian in >>>>>>> following this rule. >>>>>>> Consult with insurance: Minors over the age of 14/16 only require a >>>>>>> relative over 25/30? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While I am entirely against the prospect of allowing one minor to >>>>>>> have a key and bar others just because their proposal came up first in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> minutes. I want to make rules that are logical. We aren't creating rules >>>>>>> for just one person. Many of us have expressed interest in outreach to >>>>>>> young hackers and I don't want a feeling of second class membership to >>>>>>> stand in the way of their hacking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>> Andrew L >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Torrie Fischer < >>>>>>> tdfisc...@hackerbots.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As promised, here's the full proposal we decided on last night: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----8<---- >>>>>>>> Membership dues will have the following discount structure: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Regular rate for the first adult 18 earth years of age and older >>>>>>>> * A minimum of $15/mo for each additional adult 18 earth years of >>>>>>>> age and >>>>>>>> older >>>>>>>> * A minimum of $5/mo for each additional child younger than 18 >>>>>>>> earth years of >>>>>>>> age >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The space rules are amended to include: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Minors under 18 earth years of age are not permitted to visit >>>>>>>> SYNHAK without >>>>>>>> the supervision of an adult and the permission of their >>>>>>>> parent/guardian. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Key policy is updated to read: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Keys are restricted to those with membership before May 1st, >>>>>>>> 2014, and >>>>>>>> afterwards only adults who are 18 earth years of age and older >>>>>>>> ---->8---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me know if this is wrong at all. >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> Discuss@synhak.org >>>>>>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> Discuss@synhak.org >>>>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> Discuss@synhak.org >>>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@synhak.org >>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@synhak.org >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@synhak.org >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
