Re: [SH-Discuss] Membership Family Plans
A couple things: First and foremost as the current keeper-of-red-tape there was(or should have been) an emergency contact section on the 2nd page membership application( if not please fill this out http://static.synhak.org/documents/bizops/contact-form.pdf) . Also I will double check when I have the free time but a liability waiver should be on file for all members, as well as non-members who wish to use tools that require power or emit high(+100F) temperatures. Admittedly I've only read the summary so if it's worded different in the link I apologize for my laziness. I know most of our membership is strapped for cash, but in my opinion a 67% discount on membership(even for students as currently written) is extraordinarily high. Our low income discount is only 29%. Normally I'm not one to argue for higher membership rates but it doesn't make sense for two peoples dues to be less than one persons dues. @ Robert I understand how this comes off as an attack on you and your son. I don't think it was meant to be and your input on how to solve the issues brought up is encouraged. Prior to your son there had been no serious interest by any minor in joining SynHak. All of our guidelines, rules, and codifications were designed around legal(responsible) adults. That said I fully understand how it doesn't make sense from your perspective for people to say: congratulations, you're a member and then retroactively change the rules. Like you said, he's not autonomous: a parent will be with him whenever he's at SynHak so people don't have to worry about babysitting him. Regarding keys and beaurcarcy: Membership does allow you to apply for a key however it does not guarantee a key. Not every member has a key, and any member may block another members application for a key. Membership and keys are also non-transferable. Any member in good standing may run for board, and officer positions. There are currently no rules on age. As these positions, on occasion, are required to preform various legally binding activities there should be discussion about what if any age restriction we put on these positions. Please understand that while your son is currently the youngest and only person these rules would apply to, these are not rules specifically for -your- son. Our membership is open to all, we avoid having rules using 'be excellent to each other' as our guiding star for most decisions. By not having tomes of rules we sometimes find ourselves forming rules after the fact. This reactionary form of rule making isn't the best but it limits the rules we need to operate by. Our utilization of consensus and public discussion also allows for the best solution to the problem to be found. This path is not always quick but the final product is good. In the future we may have younger members who are autonomous. While 18 is an arbitrary age and we all know children who are more mature than some adults. Unfortunately it is the arbitrary age that every law in this country is designed around. Our insurance requires us to have liability waivers and for minors to have legal guardian signatures. So while some of this may seem like personal attacks on your son's character realize we are trying to design the most concise set of rules to apply to the largest group possible so that we can all focus on hacking rather than what someone is or is not doing. To restate: SynHak is a community; members and non members alike have opinions and want to see it grow. If you have concerns or suggestions on how we should conduct ourselves don't hesitate to voice your opinion. regards, Andrew L On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.comwrote: Rob, I will try to be brief. The discussion brought up some concerns, and the topic of discussion was member/family pricing. As an aside, we discussed our current rules concerning keys: Non-members are barred from having keys, keys are non-transferrable between members. -also: There is responsibility/risk of a keyholder, and when asked what's the youngest age a member should be to be entrusted to be at the space alone by themselves in case of accident, emergency, other the consensus of the small group was 18yrs. I agree Robert is far more mature and responsible for his age, but we felt it time to discuss some general rules, not exceptions. Seeing Robert is intending to be chaperoned to the space by a parent, this is not a conflict, except for the key part, and we felt that fit nicely into the family membership pricing discussion. Technically, his membership, -if going under the student clause would be $15. If an adult family member joined, his membership would drop to 5$ and the first adult would be $35, the second adult $15. I wouldn't have worded nice stuff so much as sharp and pokey if the wrong end is used for the wrong thing. This is a makeshift electronics lab/workshop, not a padded romper room (envisioning Mcdonalds play area). We are all delighted to have
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
I also offer my services as mediator until a CWG is organized specifically for such issues. Though, given my school load it will likely be e-mail correspondence. Sometimes I feel e-mail is best as it offers people a chance to see their words and calmly describe their issues. Torrie, Chris, SysAdmins: How hard would it be to setup a CWG@ and have it randomly send to person selecting from a set of people who have volunteered to be mediators? This would prevent/lessen emails to champions/board members to solve problems. Maybe have some exclusion operator in the subject line in case a mediator is the subject of the issue? regards, Andrew L regards, Andrew On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:10:50 Becca Salchak wrote: I agree that removal is inappropriate .I also think that mediation between you ,Andy and Chris is inappropriate because Chris as your close friend, whether he is biased or not, would be viewed as a biased party. I feel that if mediating is to happen we should seek out a mediator who is not a close friend to either of you. I do feel that Chris can be impartial and has been with me before, much like I think I can try to be impartial when moderating. Still, I agree with you. Chris and I share a mutual associate who is professionally trained in conflict resolution. She is also in the speaker's bureau queue for a session on those techniques for next month. She's offered to mediate things at the space before, and since she's not a member and I only interact maybe once or twice a month, I think she could be impartial enough. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:07:37 a l wrote: I also offer my services as mediator until a CWG is organized specifically for such issues. Though, given my school load it will likely be e-mail correspondence. Sometimes I feel e-mail is best as it offers people a chance to see their words and calmly describe their issues. Torrie, Chris, SysAdmins: How hard would it be to setup a CWG@ and have it randomly send to person selecting from a set of people who have volunteered to be mediators? This would prevent/lessen emails to champions/board members to solve problems. Maybe have some exclusion operator in the subject line in case a mediator is the subject of the issue? Fairly easily, but I'm not comfortable with that. I'd like to have more transparency and accountability than e-mailing cwg@ and hoping you get a response from a random volunteer. Specifically, I want such e-mails recorded so that the board can inspect them later on to make sure things were followed through, much like Ken's model and the one in KDE. They still would be private from the general membership, but the board and future CWG members could inspect for accountability. In that sense, it is certainly possible to setup a CWG@ mailing list, but then I'd want to pick the members of the CWG in a proper fashion with elections/consensus/whatever. Ideally, we'd even have some non-members in that group who have no vested interest other than seeing us all get along nicely. This is quickly turning into a rehashing of the previous discussions, so I will find a link to Ken's model later today. regards, Andrew L regards, Andrew On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:10:50 Becca Salchak wrote: I agree that removal is inappropriate .I also think that mediation between you ,Andy and Chris is inappropriate because Chris as your close friend, whether he is biased or not, would be viewed as a biased party. I feel that if mediating is to happen we should seek out a mediator who is not a close friend to either of you. I do feel that Chris can be impartial and has been with me before, much like I think I can try to be impartial when moderating. Still, I agree with you. Chris and I share a mutual associate who is professionally trained in conflict resolution. She is also in the speaker's bureau queue for a session on those techniques for next month. She's offered to mediate things at the space before, and since she's not a member and I only interact maybe once or twice a month, I think she could be impartial enough. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
My issue with dealing with it over email is: -yes people tend to feel more free and open but we have had issues in the past with emails being misinterpreted. - these are personal conflicts and i feel the best way to solve these problems is face to face with a peace keeper in the middle ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 15:25:27 Becca Salchak wrote: My issue with dealing with it over email is: -yes people tend to feel more free and open but we have had issues in the past with emails being misinterpreted. They happened in the past, and they'll happen again :) - these are personal conflicts and i feel the best way to solve these problems is face to face with a peace keeper in the middle +1 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
If the parties involved agree to meet in person that's great. Not everyone will want/be able to. Getting people communicating to each other, even through an intermediary, should be to goal. How it is accomplished should be left to them. Sure, we've had misunderstandings due to words not conveying mannerisms. We've also had polite conversation devolve into a shouting match. Neither form is perfect. In the end communication is key. Not talking, communicating. If both sides are talking but neither is -listening- it won't matter if they're using carrier pigeons or lawyers. If what is said is not what is meant then what ought to be done remains undone -Confucious regards, Andrew L On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, April 13, 2014 15:25:27 Becca Salchak wrote: My issue with dealing with it over email is: -yes people tend to feel more free and open but we have had issues in the past with emails being misinterpreted. They happened in the past, and they'll happen again :) - these are personal conflicts and i feel the best way to solve these problems is face to face with a peace keeper in the middle +1 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Membership Family Plans
Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: * Many of us feel uncomfortable with letting a 7 year old roam around without someone responsible watching them. I did not feel this way and I don't feel that Torrie can speak for Many of us, In fact, I had offered to show Robert how to run the 3D printer. I have shown other seven year old's how to run the 3D printer and they have done just fine. On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.comwrote: Rob, I will try to be brief. The discussion brought up some concerns, and the topic of discussion was member/family pricing. As an aside, we discussed our current rules concerning keys: Non-members are barred from having keys, keys are non-transferrable between members. -also: There is responsibility/risk of a keyholder, and when asked what's the youngest age a member should be to be entrusted to be at the space alone by themselves in case of accident, emergency, other the consensus of the small group was 18yrs. I agree Robert is far more mature and responsible for his age, but we felt it time to discuss some general rules, not exceptions. Seeing Robert is intending to be chaperoned to the space by a parent, this is not a conflict, except for the key part, and we felt that fit nicely into the family membership pricing discussion. Technically, his membership, -if going under the student clause would be $15. If an adult family member joined, his membership would drop to 5$ and the first adult would be $35, the second adult $15. I wouldn't have worded nice stuff so much as sharp and pokey if the wrong end is used for the wrong thing. This is a makeshift electronics lab/workshop, not a padded romper room (envisioning Mcdonalds play area). We are all delighted to have Robert join, but did not fully think through all the aspects. We all know Robert wouldn't be riding his bycicle here, or being dropped off while mom goes to the grocery store. So I apologize for the wording coming off as an attack on you and your wife's parenting skills or to your son. We all feel that he should be encouraged and nurtured as much as possible, but want to make sure we are setting some healthy/reasonable boundaries. If you are willing to willing to work with us on this minor growing pain, I think we can settle on a reasonable solution that doesn't include 100x more fire extinguishers. Again, all of this proposed has not been voted on by the membership group, just discussed by our subcommittee, and released for general discussion. best regards, On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Robert Rybicki rob...@robertrybicki.com wrote: Sorry for the double post. Craig I thank you for sharing your story and your warm confirmation about membership. That is the kind of kinship we should all strive for. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 11, 2014, at 10:56 PM, Craig Bergdorf mm1...@gmail.com wrote: (Happy to hear the argument about age having little to do with anything. I think I can get away with saying 29 when anyone asks for the foreseeable future, and before that it was 23, 16, 13, etc. I won't pretend I don't still have a bit of a complex on judgement based on age, being the awkward but tall kid dragged to mensa meetings their whole childhood that some drunkens would occasionally mistake for a peer, then came the question that still cuts to the bone how old are you? ) A member is a member. Since the seven year old member is my son, I will add my opinions to the discussion. First and foremost I want to express my sad displeasure in reading this. Perhaps this being paraphrased ideas of a discussion many things are getting lost in translation. However the things I have issue with are listed as problems My seven year old lives 46 minutes driving distance from the space and does not currently drive himself places. If he was of driving age and as a parent I decided he was mature enough to go places by himself, or use shop tools, or as you put it nice things then I would let him go do those things. Perhaps sometimes I would go with him at times to check on how safe he is still being. Perhaps also I would put two gps tracking devices on his car so when he finds the first one I have redundancy. Also guaranteed I, or a close and not easily recognizable friend would tail him at times. The point I am trying to make here, is my son that is a member of syn/hak, is not autonomous yet, and when the time comes that he is, we will still parent him. The way nice things is worded I am taken back to my own childhood when my evil aunt had us over and I was confined to the kitchen, because she had a house full of collectable garbage (much like syn/hak,) and I was too much of an animal to go into the rest of the rooms in the house. If there are concerns about your members not being able to handle tool, machines, supplies, or members projects (again, I'm fuzzy on what is nice,) perhaps those concerns could be brought
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
Torrie 1There is a conflict of interest, since Chris is more of your friend than mine 2Chris is trying to force a time limit on me to respond withing 24 hours of his email's. This is NOT a rule that I have to follow. 3I have to WORK, I have TWO jobs for a reason. I can not be taking time out for meetings when I have to buy new tires for my car, fix my house gutters, pay my CPA etc. etc. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Friday, April 11, 2014 16:00:01 Chris Egeland wrote: To the Board, Membership and Community of SYN/HAK: I am hereby calling a special board meeting, the authority for which is granted to me as a Champion under Section 6.4.3.1 of the bylaws. The purpose of this special meeting is as follows: * The adoption of a bylaw amendment to formally change our official address to 48 S Summit St. * The adoption of a bylaw amendment to require the board to publicly post an agenda of a meeting prior to the meeting occurring, and restricting the board from voting on topics not on said agenda. * The discussion of removing Andrew Buczko from the board for refusing to enter into a mediated discussion to resolve interpersonal conflicts with a member. I've been thinking about this for a few days, actually. I had been discussing this on and off with Chris and Omar, but I think they failed to sell me on the idea of removing Andy from the board. First: Yes, Andy and I haven't been getting along. I'm not sure whose fault it is and would really rather go to mediation so the two of us can figure things out. If any of it is my fault, I'd want to know what I did wrong, as I obviously am unable to grasp what I did so I can apologize and accept responsibility. Its a bit of a shame, since he's been with SYNHAK since the beginning. I miss friendly Andy :( Second: What is this supposed to solve? Chris had contacted Andy and myself to ask for mediation at the request of another member. I happily agreed, but didn't hear from Andy except through Chris who said that Andy said he was too busy due to Notacon. Sure, fine. I can understand that. He's pretty involved and I totally support that. I later heard that he now outright refuses and thinks that there isn't a problem. Andy doesn't want to go to mediation with me; He doesn't want to fix whatever problems are ailing the relationship between us as friends. I'm not sure how removing him from the board solves this except to send some kind of message of If you have conflicts with another member, you get kicked off the board. Thats a scary precedent in my opinion. It flies in the face of my previous arguments that the board is supposed to rubber-stamp actions taken by the membership and that it should be limited to acting as an interface between the community and any legal obligations. I'm not advocating this for the current situation with Andy and myself, but I think the appropriate response to someone who isn't willing to participate in conflict resolution is that they shouldn't be permitted to participate in the community. It shouldn't matter if they're on the board, if they're an officer, a full member, or even a non-member. I don't think the situation is at that point yet, since Andy is obviously very busy with Notacon. I'm cool with waiting another week and trying again after Notacon is done with. I really don't have a problem with Andy, and this conflict isn't causing me any significant grief. I've learned to just tune it out in the hopes that we'll cool down and get over it, or he will find time for mediation. Previously, I had called for the removal of a board member because they had broken my trust. Andy has not broken my trust, so I don't feel that he should be removed. The above points were discussed with Chris in private message, but don't appear to have had much sway. To summarize: * Removing Andy from the board because him and I have a conflict is silly * Removing anyone from the board due to an inability to resolve interpersonal conflicts is silly * I'm still open to trying mediation * Andy hasn't broken my trust, and I still think he's a cool friend, but we're just not seeing eye-to-eye where it matters * If someone doesn't want to resolve their differences with another member of the community, they aren't really participating in the community and should leave for a period of time by willful suspension, or be forced to leave by stripping them of their membership. * I do not support removing Andy from the board as a response to the conflict between him and myself. We really need a community working group to sort through this stuff instead of jumping to the board when (not if!) it happens again. I'd like to figure out a meeting time this week where we can work on it, but its Friday night and I have...consumables. I'll get back to you all on that... The venue of the board meeting shall be 48 S.
Re: [SH-Discuss] Calling a Special Board Meeting
Andrew I have a busy month this month. Everything happens in April! I will not be able to respond to requests within 5 days. Here is what's going on for April: -My Mother's B-Day The North American Model Engineering Society Web: http://www.namesexposition.com/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6BtmpYoxPQ Notacon Web: http://www.notacon.org/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4msp8SFl_klist=PLuYlHJrLmrZfPu0HFdMVfyMYF2C4UwjlO Cleveland Mini Maker Fair Web: http://makerfairecleveland.com/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhrB32n5hNw Akron Brony Meetup Web: http://www.meetup.com/Akron-Brony-Meetup/events/169761202/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6In3lrMFkYk Slot Car Racing Web: http://ohioho.com/OhioHOPRA.html Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRxhCTcm1Y8 Cuyahoga Falls Amateur Radio Club 60th Annual HAMFEST Web: http://www.cfarc.org/hamfest2014.php Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6rfQq3onbA Add this to the fact that I work two jobs and you can tell that I am going to be busy. Andrew On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 8:10 PM, a l leit...@gmail.com wrote: If the parties involved agree to meet in person that's great. Not everyone will want/be able to. Getting people communicating to each other, even through an intermediary, should be to goal. How it is accomplished should be left to them. Sure, we've had misunderstandings due to words not conveying mannerisms. We've also had polite conversation devolve into a shouting match. Neither form is perfect. In the end communication is key. Not talking, communicating. If both sides are talking but neither is -listening- it won't matter if they're using carrier pigeons or lawyers. If what is said is not what is meant then what ought to be done remains undone -Confucious regards, Andrew L On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.netwrote: On Sunday, April 13, 2014 15:25:27 Becca Salchak wrote: My issue with dealing with it over email is: -yes people tend to feel more free and open but we have had issues in the past with emails being misinterpreted. They happened in the past, and they'll happen again :) - these are personal conflicts and i feel the best way to solve these problems is face to face with a peace keeper in the middle +1 ___ 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
