Looking forward to seeing Robert (Rob and Jenny too) at the space sometime soon.
If Robert wants to be involved in a group project at SH, like cleaning or painting or sorting, just ask and someone will include him. Philip On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Robert Rybicki <[email protected]>wrote: > Jen walked away from last weeks meeting under the impression that this had > not been settled. It was only agreed that Robert Walter would get a key. > We greatly appreciate everyone's faith in Robert W and his support network. > > I don't believe it is too crazy to think that other children or > adolescents and their families are also mature and trustworthy. I don't > feel comfortable about us being a special case. I like the way Philip > worded it because it entrusts the legal guardian in the case of a minor and > yet does not bar minors from 24/7 access. > > Best > Rob > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:50 PM, a l <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Yes Philip I will third it >>> On Apr 25, 2014 9:08 PM, "Philip P. Patnode" <[email protected]> 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 "[email protected]" (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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >>>>> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> No one has any input on my suggestions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Andrew L >>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2014 6:52 PM, "a l" <[email protected]> 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 < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>> [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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
