This is news to me. Where is this requirement documented?
Is this a requirement or a preference? If it’s a requirement, where is this documented?
There were some related proposals presented at the 08/25/2017 Board meeting but none of them passed.
Rules section 6.1.2
Rules section 6.1.7 … this one is a bit confusing… I think it may be talking about a personal item on loan
https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Storage_in_Committee_Areas.5B7.5D
1 Like
It’s well established that a) the lift is a training-required item and b) that it belongs to DMS and is not on loan.
More training opportunities would be nice for pretty much all of the equipment, but that’s also not the sound of me volunteering, so I guess I don’t have much room to complain. Either way I don’t think it’s required by the current rules.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification. I overlooked that one. I note that it says, “should” not “must” but I find it more interesting that it’s documented in the Committee Storage portion of the rules.
Storage in Committee Areas
- Anything in a committee area is available for use by all members unless documented/labeled as training required.
- Items that require training may be secured, but a path to obtain use of said tool should be documented.
Again, thanks for the clarification.
I would hope that the wiki would count as documenting a path to obtain use if it were described in there.
(Note as a moderator … since I’ve derailed this topic, I’m going to move the related posts into a separate thread).
3 Likes
Wow these rules get complicated … I found even more depth …
Look at the footnote …
“Storage in Committee Areas rules expire automatically on January 31st 2016”
Now, what does this mean for the space?
1 Like
Further looking into this footnote … The board ruling appears to only talk about removing one rule not all of them.
Remove Personal Storage from Committee areas (Alex Rhodes)
Problem: Confusion is arising from personal items being stored in communal committee areas.
Solution: Update rules. https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies
Remove 1. Projects can be stored in committee controlled rooms, as long as they follow the committee's guidelines.
[lists all of the rules]
In the minutes …
Remove Personal Storage from Committee areas (Alex Rhodes)
- Proposed as written, with an amendment that this item expires on January 31st 2016 without further discussion
- Proposed by Alex Rhodes, seconded by Kent Bowling
- Unanimous Approval by the Board
I think the footnote can go away.
https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#cite_note-7
1 Like
It means that the rules are in need of a comprehensive review and update.
I’ve posted a few such clean-up items to the BoD Agenda, and will possibly post at least one more this month.
3 Likes
So… the restriction on personal Storage in committee areas expired 28 months ago?
I suppose that is one way to interpret it. The idea of the ruling was to remove this
“1. Projects can be stored in committee controlled rooms, as long as they follow the committee’s guidelines.”
“Proposed as written, with an amendment that this item expires on January 31st 2016 without further discussion”
It either says that that rule in the storage list expires on that date, meaning that it would be removed on that date or that the entire ruling, to remove that rule, expires on that date. This is why @Haley_Moore 's job is so important.
It comes down to what they are meaning by the word “Item” … The rule in the list of storage rules or the ruling in its list.
It did, but was re-instated on 2/19/2017 BOD meeting without, it would appear, proviso for expiration. To wit:
It was the intention that the prohibition of storage of “personal items” in committee areas be sunset 1 year after it was first enacted, as prior to that, storage of anything for any reason in any committee-controlled space was up to the committee chair. When we were small, it was no big deal. As we grew, so did the friction, “theft”, finger pointing, etc. Thus, the BOD in power on/around 2/19/2017 decided this needed to be a permanent part of our landscape.
I would concur.
Although I may have missed a later addendum which would change that. I don’t think I have, though…
1 Like
Thanks for providing the reference. I updated the rules by removing the footnote that said the rule expired.
2 Likes