What is the story about a $25 fee for parts 2 through 5 of the Javascript classes and not part 1?
Did you intend to charge for the first one for a book and not for the others?
As an aside, the honorarium auditors are taking a dim view of classes which have a fee and are also asking for honorarium unless it is clear that one of them is to cover for the expense of class materials. No double dipping.
Any way we can fix that on the backend? I’ve had to resubmit that several times and selected free each time but it looks like its still adding the fee.
If you will verify that you intend no fee for any of the five parts, I’ll see whether my admin-fu can do it.
I Dwight Spencer, chairman of SP/IT (soon to be previously known as VCC) do confirm that the JavaScript introduction courses recently posted do not have a fee and that you my work your magic on the back end.
chairman of SP/IT (soon to be previously known as VCC)
This doesn’t match the notes, per @Coul, from last night’s Digital Media meeting:
If you are interested, but unable to attend tonight’s meeting, no worry, the most important item on the agenda was the move to form an independent committee for Software Development which passed. We also spoke in general terms on goals of the committee such as teaching software development, attracting guest speakers who are leaders in related disciplines, working with Infrastructure on DMS related projects, and sponsoring hackathons. There were quite a few more great ideas being tossed around, but these have been the items most discussed and are the ones I will be taking to the board. Since, at the moment, a chair has not been elected, the newly formed committee might modify portions of the committee’s goals.
Then I saw this Board agenda item, which also does not match the solution in the meeting notes:
Rename Vintage Computer Committee to Software Programming and Information Technology Committee (Dwight Spencer)
Problem: Confusion over the committee’s name and mandate has resulted in a few members not understanding that the VCC had been the defacto Software and IT committee at the space. Given the latest development with in the committee towards aquiring Pearson View partnership and the fact we have considantly provided 99.8% software and IT focused classes we fell that the name vintage computer no longer reflects the committee.
Solution: The interactive museum i.e. the public face of “vintage computer committee” is turned into a SIG under the newly named Software Programming and Information Technology Committee. Furthermore, no new budgets would be required and the same committee would be able to expand further IT and software development education at the space.
@Coul and @denzuko, you do not seem to be on the same sheet of music. Please resolve.
I’m really not sure what’s going on with this one…
Pardon me if I was not clear.
@Coul: Your notes state a new committee is being proposed & that the Chairperson spot will be filled by an election.
@denzuko: You state that VCC is merely being re-named & you will retain its Chairmanship.
Two very different things. Which one is correct?
To Quote Coul himself:
An additional update:
More discussion took place after the meeting which involved @denzuko, @Photomancer and me. I had to leave after a short time to go make, but, without me talking to Dwight yet and hearing this 2nd hand, they seem to think it would be an easier transition to change VCC into a special interest group (SIG) under the Software Development Committee who would elect a new chair, then take the committee position VCC currently holds.
My understanding the reason for this is because there are board members want fewer committees, not more, so it would possibly be easier to get passed by the board.
Personally, I’m great with that idea if it makes the transition smoother. I really don’t care one way or the other as long as Software Dev is made into its own committee, which is long over-due.
In the end, VCC has been the software development committee for over two years now going back to when @Draco was chair of Digital Media and we both agreed just as Coul pointed out that software development needs to be its own committee that’s where VCC has been. Our earliest classes has been on Javascript, Python, and Basic.
To be even clear we have been doing programming classes since May 7, 2016 - https://www.meetup.com/dallasmakerspace/events/230801935/ as a SIG under Classroom and most of our members, including myself, at the time came from Digital Media, Infrastructure. and Electronics committees.
I do take this situation as a sign 1) our efforts to build out a software development culture via the events and classes at the space has been successful and 2) that we as a committee need better efforts focused around the space to prevent further confusion since the majority of the context from attendees was not aware that their was a software ordinate committee.
With that I will point out that I already have been in talks with PR and with our volunteers to get the word out about the committee. This also goes hand in hand with the board meeting item to change the name
and other efforts that have been in place with the committee prior to the previous meeting.
I do apologizes to you and the community here at the space for the confusion and would hope that we can work together going forward to continue building a better development culture here at the space and throughout the DFW area. I’ll even invite everyone to submit a few slide decks for our TED style talks at UT Dallas in January.
Am not disputing the need for the SW Dev committee or that VCC moved away from vintage computing.
My issues still stand and need resolution:
Either Coul is wrong or you are wrong about what agreements were reached at that meeting.
The two of you need to reconcile the discrepancy.
I look forward to the reply.
Software Development Committee who would elect a new chair,
That in itself is the contradiction from the discussion between the board, Coul and myself.
The board members at that discussion has pointed out that changing the name of a committee does not require a change in chairs and I would hope that this fact is not lost in politics after all what about when Welcoming Committee was voted to Public Relations Committee or Operation and Facilities Committee?
does not require
Nor does it - in any way - rule out a change in chairs.
Which, if the meeting notes are accurate (still seeking confirmation from you and @Coul on this), is what a group of people decided by mutual agreement at last night’s meeting.
Please tell me that decision was not overridden by a hallway discussion?
hallway discussion
In all honest I attended that meeting to be excellent to our membership and even offered a middle ground for an option. I don’t like back door politics as much as the rest of us even if there was a lot of hallway meetings of others going on at the time.
Despite obviously the wrong naming of the committee and several attempts to reach out no only to Coul prior to appointment as chair to work together we are now faced with this situation.
To be clear, at this point the item is now being put before the board and I do welcome further discussion here but the facts are for two years now VCC has been the software committee, we started out as a software sig with two years now of javascript, python and IT classes at the space.
If we’re wanting to change the chairs then where was anyone’s name for when VCC had its last chair voting? I’m more than will to work with everyone and above all the vice chair seat is still open as I proposed prior but in the end of the day we need to focus not on the politics but on what makes DMS better as a whole.
Answer: At the time it was a vintage computing group.
That said, my question still stands unanswered: What did last night’s group decide, Dwight?
If they did indeed decide to form a NEW committee and call for election of a chair, no one person in disagreement should override the mutual agreement of the many and post a board item contradicting that decision.
@denzuko. You are mixing 2 different things.
VCC is great. 2 of my devices have been on display in the museum. I’ve had honorariums from some of the classes I taught go to fund the committee.
You have taught several software classes. You and VCC are not the same thing, though you are the driving force for it. Many of us have taught software classes, under various umbrellas.
The discussion this week had 20 people meet. Nothing was voted on yet. There will be a vote. I am glad you are running for chair.
If you want to remake VCC, that should also be discussed. You are wanting more than a name change. You want to ditch it and move on to something else.
Dwight, I’m at a complete loss to understand what you’re asserting in this thread.
Your proposal to have VCC renamed and repurposed as the SD committee was shot down by the people in attendance.
Absolutely no one other than you either suggested or wanted it.
By the people in attendance, the decision was made to give more than one days notice to the Members of the Makerspace to discuss it. And we set a meeting for the larger group on Tuesday, December 5th.
I’m at a complete loss as to why you would so willfully mispresent what was said and done.
Please stop this immediately. We’re meeting on December 5th, and if you want to run for committee chairman then, feel free to do so.
Kirk Keeter
For the record, the Board of Directors has no official position on the number of committees. Individual directors may have an opinion, but weigh that as such.
The Board should reflect the will of the members. It is up to us to drive consensus, not us following their will.
“ditch it and move on”
This is not what was discussed before, doing, or after the meeting. In any situation VCC is not going anywhere.
There will be a vote. I am glad you are running for chair.
While I know most of the classes I’ve taught have been under VCC since the founding of the committee and that we over all have not needed nor applied for honorariums in the past for our classes because we had not needed the funding. I will say that I’m glad there is a vote as well and even if I’m a bit of a bull dog at times overall welcome what ever comes as a decision and would push forward with efforts to provide Software and IT education to not just the space but to the DFW area along with the STEM and Professional Certification programs since at the end of the day its more about making a better makerspace and community in our area than anything else.
This is what I took away from the meeting…
Software Development currently has at least three homes: Vintage Computer, Infrastructure, Digital Media.
The official home is Digital Media.
@Coul believes the time has come for Software Development to be a new committee. The people in attendance were in strong agreement.
The plan is to propose forming a new committee and removing Software Development from Digital Media at the next board meeting (Sunday). The people in attendance were in strong agreement.
@denzuko suggested reforming Vintage Computer into Software Development. I see this suggestion as a difference without distinction. The end result is the same: a new committee is formed for Software Development.
If the new committee is formed the first meeting is to occur in early December. A chair is to be selected at that time. The people in attendance were in strong agreement.
I believe @Coul nominated someone for chair (Humdan Bakhshi?)
@denzuko advocated for himself as chair given the depth and breadth of the software classes that have been taught under the umbrella of Vintage Computer.
Anything else discussed was after the meeting had adjourned.
Some personal observations…
I agree with @Coul that we need a new separate committee for Software Development. The means by how that is achieved is irrelevant to me.
Regardless of which other committees have a hand in software development Digital Media is the current official home. Which means any decisions are @Coul’s (or the Board’s).
I believe there has to be a vote for chair. There were several teachers in the meeting who had no idea classes were being taught under Vintage Computer; they assumed Infrastructure was the hosting committee. As teachers they should have a say in who leads them.
Assuming I have the time and the Board agrees to form a new committee I intended to join. But only if I can vote for chair.
Despite @denzuko deviating from the plan I intend to vote for him as chair.
Brian - Thank you for the detailed notes. This is exactly the level of clarification for which I was asking. It matches what two others have told me off-line. Good to have it on the record, especially from a supprter of Dwight’s.
@denzuko - you need to change the wording of your BoD agenda item to reflect the meeting decisions. I look forward to reading the new proposal tomorrow, as well as your platform & qualifications for your run as Software Dev chair.
I could not make the meeting because I had something else scheduled at the time. But the “meeting” sort of came to me. A director with whom I often have long conversations came by as I was packing up. Because he would spend a lot of time in the big Common Room, I asked how the software development meeting went. He did not know particulars, but he was very amused about the name. Around that time, Dwight came by and the “meeting” continued.
Dwight explained that by changing the scope of the Vintage Computer Committee, it would be easier to get a new one accepted. In the past, the directors created committees only when there is a need to allocate space or if a group needed to handle money. The main reason is that additional committees makes the job of the Finance committee harder.
Another director came by and we discussed this some more along with other issues about The Space.
I had a discussion with Coul later that night. He told me he just wants software development out of Digital Media.
Anyway, here is my take on the situation:
Several committees currently claim software development. Electronics because of the embedded microcontrollers connection. Digital Media because it is a set of bits on a storage device. Vintage computers. Science because of the term “computer science.” And finally, Infrastructure because it is actively developing and maintaining software in use.
Electronics has a good case. Many colleges put computer science in with electrical engineering, though some used to associate it with math. Many of the programming classes have been associated with Electronics.
The Digital Media claim is dubious at best as they have offered probably fewer classes on software development than the others other than Infrastructure. I do not get why some think Digital Media currently owns software development; just because it is listed that way on the wiki? So does Science.
Vintage Computer has a natural claim except when it comes to modern technologies.
The Science Committee claim initially seems to be a stretch, but look at the calendar for the next week. A majority of programming and related classes are by a Science member, whether it is Python, Processing, Arduino, BASH or MATLAB.
Infrastructure because of active software development and maintenance.
The term “sponsoring committee” is a misnomer. “Beneficiary committee” may be more accurate as an instructor may designate any committee to receive honorarium money. Unless a class requires using the tools or space of a particular committee, the chair need not even be aware of the class.
Software development is a very broad topic. A committee will have difficulty with focus much as the Science Committee has. I am not sure a single committee is better than separate parts affiliated with existing committees.
Maybe more discussion is needed before any action is taken. This thing seems to be very rushed.