Probably. On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Colin Stanners <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark, do you get paid per word? > > > On 8/25/12, Mark Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But it's a bad precedent to offer to pay cash, especially if they're not > >> asking for it. > > > > I don't like it if it ends up feeling like we're just agreeing to an > > arbitrary extra levy on the side and then still feel vulnerable to such > > demands surprising us in the future. > > > > If the terms of the current lease are unsatisfactory and putting us at > > risk of being on our asses then we have to accept that the lease terms > > will need to change. We then hope to change them in a way that can > > actually be sustained over the term of the lease so that we can have > > some predictability here. Surprises are bad. > > > > That means either keeping electricity as an included service and paying > > a higher rent or adopting a formula where we're responsible for a part > > of the electric bill on a formula basis that changes with actual use. > > (a flat rate "extra" for electricity is really the same as a rent > > increase with electricity remaining a "included" service) > > > > The first option entails our landlord and management coming to a > > realization of the consumption reality -- that we're like a big, busy > > office and not an low-activity storage warehouse. (manufacturing is on > > an even higher level of magnitude) > > > > Any reasonably smart landlord and/or management is not going to give > > consumption or efficiency promises any credence if they're > > re-negotiating on this basis. It wouldn't be wise. They'll simply jack > > up the rent high enough so that their ass is covered within all > > foreseeable scenarios allowable under the terms. > > > > Nor are they going to get anywhere with us by trying to come up with > > restrictive use terms as we're not going agree to anything that makes > > Asset Works and Skullspace less than they already are. Our goals are to > > grow and become places with more action and activity, not less! > > > > Nor could I imagine it being in the interest of any party to have a > > fixed list of 24/7 devices with a new negotiation each time that list > > needs to change. > > > > The second option is for a new lease to have an explicit part of the > > electricity bill passed on the basis of a formula, such as subtract an > > amount reflecting a Cre8tory estimate and a base amount that's > > "included", and then we pay the rest. > > > > > > Either way, we're going to pay in the end for the cost of having a big > > hackerspace... if it's not done in a /new deal/ designed to last than > > we'll see it in pieces through creeping demands. > > > > As for energy savings and efficiencies... > > > > > > > So we could start with a *long term* commitment to > > > reduce power usage (with fans and better lights to bed installed > > > soonish)... > > > > > > I don't think we can make that commitment. We're going to grow, and so > > too will our usage. > > > > At best, conservation efforts and efficiencies will slow the long term > > *rate* of growth. > > > > At worst, efficiencies have a paradoxical effect where they actually > > encourage a growth in use. (see jevons paradox) > > > > This doesn't mean that conservation efforts and new efficiencies are not > > worthwhile. I'm all for them and will make personal efforts to help. > > (I have long hoped to move folks with light server room loads on to it > > the vm server for example and I welcome the fact that folks are more > > motivated to take up the offer now) > > > > It just means we can't expect miracles. We have to realistically be > > prepared to bear the true costs of operating. > > > > > > Think about it -- we're at the point where a substantial electrical > > upgrade is needed -- and this upgrade will make much more capacity > > available. Even after new convservation and efficiency efforts, is a > > growing hackerspace with more capacity coming online going to end up > > using less once that becomes available? > > > > As an example, one of the things we're all hoping will be enabled after > > the big electrical upgrade is better summer climate control. (especially > > if we want to attract and retain more members who aren't part of the > > super loyal core) > > > > It will be great if better summer climate control included the idea of > > an automatic forced air system to draw in during cold nights (super warm > > nights are useless, right?) and also featured high efficiency air > > conditioners to fill in when air forcing isn't enough. (and to be more > > efficient, A/C could be made to not kick-in during off peak times -- let > > the small numbers of very late night or early morning hackers fry) > > > > But we're not going use such an efficient system to just achieve the > > status quo (server room and classroom so so and really bad everywhere > > else) on a cheaper budget. Members are naturally going to want the > > benefits of this system to be for the entire floor and want to use it to > > ensure temperatures like 24c floor wide or something during peak times. > > > > It would be pretty amazing if the efficiencies were so grand that we > > ended up getting more for less on the subject of climate control or any > > other area. But, life rarely gives such dividends. > > > > > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ > > > _______________________________________________ > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ >
_______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
