Torrie Fischer <[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]>wrote:

> 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 <[email protected]
> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 up to that member or the members guardian.
>> My wife was at the meeting with our seven year old. Nothing was said.
>>
>> Robert W in in fact seven and is more responsible than myself at times.
>> If you tell him a rule, good luck trying to change it after that, because
>> it has already been programmed. He is excited to be part of this community.
>> A community he and believe in and he absolutely belongs in.  He is also
>> excited to gain full 24/7 access to the space because of my unusual
>> schedule. If entrusted with something and told how important it is he will
>> follow through every time. Go shooting with him sometime and he will give
>> you a lesson in gun safety and have better muzzle control than you do.  My
>> younger child is more haphazard as a matter of personality and he will not
>> be going to the space for the foreseeable future because I can not trust
>> him.
>>
>> I recognize this is a matter of policy and not an attack on my child. I
>> struggle with it, but I recognize it.  Perhaps it would have been more
>> excellent to just say minor, then call out your only seven year old member.
>>   It makes us feel like he is unwanted or not trusted. Again things that
>> should have been brought up at the meeting. He applied for membership at
>> the suggestion of Torrie. He was vouched for by Torrie and Becca. His full
>> membership was consented on by the members at this weeks meeting. He was
>> not made an associate member, an honorary member, or a previsionary member.
>>  He was accepted by what appeared to be open arms.
>>
>> I realize syn/hak is not a daycare.  Torrie expressed this concern to me
>> the night Robert W turned in his application. I thought I made it clear
>> then that he would never be at the space without myself or a close family
>> member there. That said I agree that a mature person should be watching
>> unknown or immature people. I have a problem with an age being just set at
>> a magical number of 18. Poof your 18 now, you can handle all the nice
>> things, go play and have fun.
>>
>> Here is my counter proposal if you will.  If anyone has a problem with
>> minors or in this case seven year olds don't make them members. Or perhaps
>> since maturity is not a function of age it would be more appropriate to
>> bring up concerns during the interview process, and then decide that some
>> kids can or cannot be members because they and their guardians are not a
>> good fit.
>> If there are concerns with a member, or if the member is a minor, that
>> minor and their guardians, then don't issue a key; keep age out of it.  Age
>> has nothing to do with anything in my opinion and it is more a matter of
>> character.  Perhaps their will come a day there is a teen or two that
>> really need syn/hak in their life because the sports teams and the kids
>> that play on them don't understand said teen. These decisions need to be
>> made on a case by case basis as I was under the impression they already
>> are. Making a policy against minors is foolish and not excellent.
>>
>> In closing, I am hurt. However, in a sick way I feel closer to syn/hak
>> now. As if I went through a right-of-passage. Robert W and I got called out
>> on discuss like I see others do to each other on a weekly basis.  I am not
>> the kind of personality to be nice to your face then get high and mighty
>> behind the safety of a keyboard. I am not introverted and I prefer personal
>> conflict resolution. If you have a problem with me or my family as a matter
>> of excellence it will be addressed directly to me or my family before it
>> gets thrown up on discuss.
>>
>> Thank you all for your time
>> Robert S Rybicki
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Apr 11, 2014, at 7:18 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, all.
>> >
>> > We had a very good discussion at the space tonight about membership
>> dues and
>> > such.
>> >
>> > Here's a draft:
>> >
>> > https://synhak.org/wiki/Membership/Sandbox
>> >
>> > The notable things:
>> >
>> > * There is still a 10% discount for buying 3+ months in advance, but it
>> covers
>> > the whole payment regardless of how many people you're paying for.
>> > * Base membership is still $35/mo
>> > * It is $15 per adult in a family instead of $35
>> > * Each minor under 18 years old is $5/mo in a family
>> > * Keys may not be issued to those who are under 18 earth years of age
>> > * Minors must have an adult supervising them at all times and the
>> permission
>> > of their legal parent/guardian
>> >
>> > This solves the following problems:
>> >
>> > * Many of us feel uncomfortable with letting a 7 year old have a key to
>> our
>> > Nice Things, which is a very big responsibility
>> > * Families often aren't all using the space at the same time
>> > * Many of us feel uncomfortable with letting a 7 year old roam around
>> without
>> > someone responsible watching them
>> >
>> > I'll be adding this to the agenda for next Tuesday for discussion.
>> >
>> > Feedback is welcome as always :)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to