Re: [SH-Discuss] SYNHAK Drug Policy
Okay, so what this really sounds like is a problem between a few individuals about an isolated instant involving one person. This can be resolved individually with mediation (if necessary)instead of with legislation. Is this now grounds for policy creation? If so, I'd like to outline a few other points that could fall in this realm: 1: The parking lot across the street is private parking and does not belong to Synhak. People who park there but are not authorized to do so may be towed. Do we need to have a parking policy now? 2: The military recruiting office is 50ft from our door, there is no smoking within 50ft of a government building. Do we need designated smoking areas? 3: I've seen people pull out their personal laptops to show me something and in the background I see a torrent application running. They could be downloading cracked operating systems, music, movies, TV shows (all of which I've heard discussed at Synhak) which is illegal and logged on our ip address. Do we need an acceptable use policy to use our internet access? Devin, I'm not trying to side-step your suggestion, I'm not even against the idea of saying we don't condone that type of thing (because, really, I don't condone it so long as it remains against the law). What you're suggestion is indicative of the fact that there is no formal statement from Synhak on the subject. I'm trying to come up with a resolution that doesn't come off as Synhak has a substance problem (because Synhak does NOT), that protects the organization's interest, and requires little effort to implement or the need to go back and change as society changes. What I don't want is to foster a climate where if a person has a problem with something or someone, that they point their finger and say You fix it. It is the antithesis of a hackerspace. Individual responsibility and community are paramount at Synhak and using the board to address minor issues between a few individuals with general legislation is a detriment to future of how Synhak is governed/operates. The only time the police should ever be involved at Synhak is when someone refuses to leave when asked by a Champion or other officer. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, March 09, 2014 22:57:13 Michael Griesacker wrote: in regards to the recent incident last tuesday, and, if memory serves, there were two incidents with the same individual, was that member asked to leave, and did someone sit down with that member the next day or after and discuss their inappropriate behavior? I would assume No. If someone gets asked to leave or a issue of unacceptable behavior does need brought up within the community, I'd expect to see it on discuss@. You can't really ask someone to leave and *not* tell everyone else that they're not allowed to stick around. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, March 09, 2014 17:35:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I feel that my suggestion was side stepped completely. After receiving multiple verbal complaints, and a written formal complaint I feel this has become a problem. Your suggestion doesn't allow SYNHAK to really say anything other than bad hacker, think about what you have done. I don't want to see it degrade to people calling the police instead of calmly resolving any issues within Synhak. The policy has nothing to do with adult alcohol consumption or behavior as that is subject to opinion and point of view. With this policy we can calmly and internally quell Sorry, I re-read this and just about spat my tea on my laptop. Internally quell? Devin, SYNHAK is an organization that values communication and transparency. This has never changed in the last two years. If someone has a complaint about another participant in the community, the solution is to get the two together and hash out their differences. If someone had come and complained to me that another member was doing something they didn't approve of, I would be sure to get the two together in a safe space and mediate. Somehow that hasn't actually needed to happen 'till all this boiled over. I think we should consider ourselves quite lucky. I've received some pretty nasty e-mails from individuals regarding misunderstandings about my financial reporting. So I talked with Chris and he's tried to reach out and get some mediation going. I think that was maybe 2-3 weeks ago. From what I can tell they're still upset and not telling me or Chris why that is. I say that because neither of us have heard back. Internally quell really comes off like a non-statement. This drug policy idea appears to be an attempt to wave some hands and hope the problem goes away without actually connecting the people in question to resolve their differences.
Re: [SH-Discuss] SYNHAK Drug Policy
On Monday, March 10, 2014 07:44:07 Omar Rassi wrote: Okay, so what this really sounds like is a problem between a few individuals about an isolated instant involving one person. This can be resolved individually with mediation (if necessary)instead of with legislation. Is this now grounds for policy creation? If so, I'd like to outline a few other points that could fall in this realm: 1: The parking lot across the street is private parking and does not belong to Synhak. People who park there but are not authorized to do so may be towed. Do we need to have a parking policy now? 2: The military recruiting office is 50ft from our door, there is no smoking within 50ft of a government building. Do we need designated smoking areas? 3: I've seen people pull out their personal laptops to show me something and in the background I see a torrent application running. They could be downloading cracked operating systems, music, movies, TV shows (all of which I've heard discussed at Synhak) which is illegal and logged on our ip address. Do we need an acceptable use policy to use our internet access? Devin, I'm not trying to side-step your suggestion, I'm not even against the idea of saying we don't condone that type of thing (because, really, I don't condone it so long as it remains against the law). What you're suggestion is indicative of the fact that there is no formal statement from Synhak on the subject. I'm trying to come up with a resolution that doesn't come off as Synhak has a substance problem (because Synhak does NOT), that protects the organization's interest, and requires little effort to implement or the need to go back and change as society changes. What I don't want is to foster a climate where if a person has a problem with something or someone, that they point their finger and say You fix it. It is the antithesis of a hackerspace. Individual responsibility and community are paramount at Synhak and using the board to address minor issues between a few individuals with general legislation is a detriment to future of how Synhak is governed/operates. The only time the police should ever be involved at Synhak is when someone refuses to leave when asked by a Champion or other officer. Since the dawn of time, we've all stressed that the board exists simply so that SYNHAK, Inc exists as a legal entity in the eyes of the State of Ohio. The Membership has always been in charge. I mean, whats the point of having weekly meetings, consensus, champions, mediation, excellence, and everything else associated with our governance process if the board feels that they're free to jump in at any time and decide what is best for us all? On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, March 09, 2014 22:57:13 Michael Griesacker wrote: in regards to the recent incident last tuesday, and, if memory serves, there were two incidents with the same individual, was that member asked to leave, and did someone sit down with that member the next day or after and discuss their inappropriate behavior? I would assume No. If someone gets asked to leave or a issue of unacceptable behavior does need brought up within the community, I'd expect to see it on discuss@. You can't really ask someone to leave and *not* tell everyone else that they're not allowed to stick around. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, March 09, 2014 17:35:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I feel that my suggestion was side stepped completely. After receiving multiple verbal complaints, and a written formal complaint I feel this has become a problem. Your suggestion doesn't allow SYNHAK to really say anything other than bad hacker, think about what you have done. I don't want to see it degrade to people calling the police instead of calmly resolving any issues within Synhak. The policy has nothing to do with adult alcohol consumption or behavior as that is subject to opinion and point of view. With this policy we can calmly and internally quell Sorry, I re-read this and just about spat my tea on my laptop. Internally quell? Devin, SYNHAK is an organization that values communication and transparency. This has never changed in the last two years. If someone has a complaint about another participant in the community, the solution is to get the two together and hash out their differences. If someone had come and complained to me that another member was doing something they didn't approve of, I would be sure to get the two together in a safe space and mediate. Somehow that hasn't actually needed to happen 'till all this boiled over. I think we should consider
Re: [SH-Discuss] SYNHAK Drug Policy
I don't see a problem with asking people not to do things. I don't see why before this weeks meeting we send out a message saying something along the lines of if you are going to have a beer out two save it for after the meeting . and if you choose to drink during the meeting that is un excellent to the rest of the hakkers in the meeting. Hopefully people respect that. Which I feel like most of our regulars will. And also state that it is un excellent to operate the heavy duty tools while drinking On Mar 10, 2014 9:44 AM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: On Monday, March 10, 2014 07:44:07 Omar Rassi wrote: Okay, so what this really sounds like is a problem between a few individuals about an isolated instant involving one person. This can be resolved individually with mediation (if necessary)instead of with legislation. Is this now grounds for policy creation? If so, I'd like to outline a few other points that could fall in this realm: 1: The parking lot across the street is private parking and does not belong to Synhak. People who park there but are not authorized to do so may be towed. Do we need to have a parking policy now? 2: The military recruiting office is 50ft from our door, there is no smoking within 50ft of a government building. Do we need designated smoking areas? 3: I've seen people pull out their personal laptops to show me something and in the background I see a torrent application running. They could be downloading cracked operating systems, music, movies, TV shows (all of which I've heard discussed at Synhak) which is illegal and logged on our ip address. Do we need an acceptable use policy to use our internet access? Devin, I'm not trying to side-step your suggestion, I'm not even against the idea of saying we don't condone that type of thing (because, really, I don't condone it so long as it remains against the law). What you're suggestion is indicative of the fact that there is no formal statement from Synhak on the subject. I'm trying to come up with a resolution that doesn't come off as Synhak has a substance problem (because Synhak does NOT), that protects the organization's interest, and requires little effort to implement or the need to go back and change as society changes. What I don't want is to foster a climate where if a person has a problem with something or someone, that they point their finger and say You fix it. It is the antithesis of a hackerspace. Individual responsibility and community are paramount at Synhak and using the board to address minor issues between a few individuals with general legislation is a detriment to future of how Synhak is governed/operates. The only time the police should ever be involved at Synhak is when someone refuses to leave when asked by a Champion or other officer. Since the dawn of time, we've all stressed that the board exists simply so that SYNHAK, Inc exists as a legal entity in the eyes of the State of Ohio. The Membership has always been in charge. I mean, whats the point of having weekly meetings, consensus, champions, mediation, excellence, and everything else associated with our governance process if the board feels that they're free to jump in at any time and decide what is best for us all? On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, March 09, 2014 22:57:13 Michael Griesacker wrote: in regards to the recent incident last tuesday, and, if memory serves, there were two incidents with the same individual, was that member asked to leave, and did someone sit down with that member the next day or after and discuss their inappropriate behavior? I would assume No. If someone gets asked to leave or a issue of unacceptable behavior does need brought up within the community, I'd expect to see it on discuss@. You can't really ask someone to leave and *not* tell everyone else that they're not allowed to stick around. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, March 09, 2014 17:35:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I feel that my suggestion was side stepped completely. After receiving multiple verbal complaints, and a written formal complaint I feel this has become a problem. Your suggestion doesn't allow SYNHAK to really say anything other than bad hacker, think about what you have done. I don't want to see it degrade to people calling the police instead of calmly resolving any issues within Synhak. The policy has nothing to do with adult alcohol consumption or behavior as that is subject to opinion and point of view. With this policy we can calmly and internally quell Sorry, I re-read this and just about spat my tea
Re: [SH-Discuss] Active projects@synhak
Thanks for asking. 1. Plastic lid launching machine (Moxie point generator) for the electric car project. 2. (Two Saturdays a month 12-3pm) Greater Akron area Robotics Club (GARC) starts 22 March at noon at 48 Summit street. Club will design and build a remote controlled mobile robot that turns a one foot doubling cube then shoots ping pong balls at a target to score maximum points in a 3 minute round. Club mainly aimed at Jr and Sr. high students. Students from any school or home schooling are welcome to join in. Additional Adult mentors are welcome. Please help advertise this club. Please phone Tim Seeley @ 330 858-1719 for further details or questions. V/R Tim Seeley From: discuss-boun...@synhak.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@synhak.org] On Behalf Of Kshitij Jha Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:55 PM To: discuss@synhak.org Subject: [SH-Discuss] Active projects@synhak What are some of the hacks/projects being worked on currently (or planned) at synhak? The mailing list seems thin on them. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] board meeting minutes
On Monday, March 10, 2014 21:13:54 Craig Bergdorf wrote: below are the minutes from tonight's board meeting: Board meeting 3/10/14 In attendance: Becca Salchak Craig Bergdorf Andrew Buczko Justin Herman Chris Egeland Devin Wolfe Torri Ficher AJ9 Philip Patnode Ken Burns Mike Grieslik Alex Kot No moderator Devin opens by covering procedure the board functions is to make sure that the space runs properly I'm gonna acquire us a dead tree edition of Robert's Rules of Order to have at the space for such instances. Ken: points of contention going on at the space need for community Working Group to help solve problems and mediate. The CWG Consists of members not tied to the conflict at hand. Items like the sublease, proposal to remove from office. Ken put out a temp proposal about the community working group and plans on proposing it at the meeting this week. Thinks could be around 5 people on the CWG he volunteers to be one of them no board members or champions. Gives the parties involved would be given a chance to share their side in private. And the CWG would come to a decision that is true to bylaws and the interest of the group. And the recommendations would go before the board and the membership without open debate. The members would vote on the recommendations and then carried out. All the notes of the moderation would be archived off so members could audit the notes if the so wished. He would like to have this in place in a week so within the next few weeks we will be able to act on it. Aj9: asks would tis take the power away from the leaders? Ken: no, they have no authority they can only make recommendations. Becca: are these permanent members? Ken: yes but after the few issues we have are solved they would be dissolved Torri: likes this model, she thinks we should review after the process is done and possibly make a bylaw amendment. Mike: does the group bypass the board? Ken: results first go to the board they can decide if the proper procedures were followed then it would be released to the members. Chris: States that the discussion on the removal of Devin and Justin has been proposed and that we will discuss it at the meeting this week. Then will be voted on the following AJ9: Has there been any discussion of hiring an outside party to mediate? Ken: There hasn't been a discussion yet but if we don't see a way forward he suggests that we possibly go that route. Craig: suggests we get outside people to sit on this board. Ken: either way they are just making a recommendation. Justin: feels that a professional mediator but because of time restraint we might not be able to use outside source. Ken: is there a master list of members? Chris: yes and as a member you can request from Andrew. Justin: can we use non members Ken: that is up for discussion. Who decides the group? Chris: feels it should be up to members. Or have the board select the people then the membership agrees on it. Devin: that's going to drag on the parties in the dispute should decide AJ9: agrees Craig: thinks we should take a quick vote Justin: both sides submit 3 non partial people then the members can decide Chris : for your proposal will you submit the list of the issues Ken: yes I will list the sub-lease and the removal of officers. If we could refrain from talking about them until we get through this process just to keep the heat down. Aj:formally introduced herself, has liability insurance for her area of synhak, takes role of liaison for something new entertainment for this. Devin: we don't have a formal complaint system when we formed synhak the board would handle business and champions handle day to day. Torri: champion manages day to day bills, trash, building maintenance. Nothing more but it has been extended to conflict res. But doest feel that is appropriate that we should be able to solve our issues as adults. Champions have the power to doacraticly take over an office. Devin: can we agree on more concrete terms? Torrie: I think the members should be involved Devin: then it will eventually vote on and become a bylaw Torri:No Devin: so far most of the complaints already go to the champions. Andy: can we have a figure head Torri: I am terrified of that no Chris: technically as champion I have no authority but people still ask permission from me Torri: that is just a social thing that we need to break. They can be conflict res. People if they want to be they are like the manager of mcdonalds Devin: what do we do about complaints? Torri: that is wat the CWG does Devin: but they are not concrete... Torri: the members should be responsible for this but I want the CWG to be permanent I wish to continue this Tuesday Permanent only after we've evaluated how this go at it works out. I really think this is
