I donât see the point of your question.
If youâre implyiing someone is teaching the same tool 3 times in a row on the same day, then the auditors are not doing their job of stopping classes they should be stopping.
Please show me an example of where this has happened. If itâs a fictitious example, then Iâd kindly request stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
If the auditors arenât doing their job, retrain or replace them. The classes have a long lead time to give the auditors a chance to deny class requests. The lead time prevents more notice of class availability, but itâs a tradeoff, because the benefit is giving auditors time to stop bad classes from happening.
Education is a group and falls directly under leadership, does it not? Hereâs a suggestion. Leadership can get together with @dougemes to make sure the rules for auditing are clear, and then stop the sketchy classes and then we can stop having this conversation.
As to the original question, If someone knows they can teach 3 different classes that give people access to getting signed off for 3 different tools, then whatâs the problem? As weâve already established, new teachers havenât stepped up in enough quantity to fill demand.
When a teacher puts classes on the calendar in advance, they have no way of knowing how many people will sign up. The current rule says classes run with 3 people. If you donât like the rules, and enough people agree, youâre free change them. But itâs not cool to blame people for doing what the rules say to do and teach three people who show up.
Iâm very tired of arguing, here and via @yashsedaiâs private messages. Iâve said what I have to say. Let someone else defend our teachers for awhile.
TL:DR Retrain the auditors to stop sketchy classes, stop blaming teachers who do a good job of teaching and meeting the demand of requested classes.
To my recollection, this type of holistic contextual review is not something that Honorarium Auditors have been instructed to suss out. (I may have missed an informal thread discussing this topic, but this is my recollection.)
If that is desired, then perhaps someone should consider updating https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Honorarium_Rules
Not it!
The original was here, my comment was one split out from the original making it look like I started this fun little chat.
Boy. All those topic splits make it look like I enjoy doing topic splits just so I can talk about topic splits!
Iâd much rather just let the convo meander where it will, but when threads keep gettingâŚerâŚvehementlyâŚoff topic, I give in to the pressure.
Should I split this one at your comment?
(kiddingâŚkiddingâŚ)
This what WAS occurring at the time of our big honorarium expenditures. It was corrected by the limits. And unfortunately at the time the auditors were few and the remaining were overwhelmed. They were volunteers.
We are discussing honorarium issues in this thread and the past has shaped our future going forward. Some are still denying the issues we have had to deal with. DMS has never been anti-teacher, just keeping the system as fair as possible.
Quality matters. Iâll never defend cheating.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Just to be absolutely clear, woodshop has been given all the funds that itâs requested, in fact itâs been given thousands of dollars that it wasnât entitled to due to needing emergency repairs on important equipment. The only holdups have been because this large and important committee failed to have committee meetings in either December or January, to the extent that they did have meetings those meetings did not result in minutes. Per the purchasing rules minutes are necessary in order to determine what spending requests have been authorized by the committee and even then I personally worked with this committee to ensure that they had what they needed to opperate. To say that funds have been withheld for any other reason is simply a lie.
I like the succinct way that James stated this. Iâm concerned that itâs a little vague, as are the standing rules, specifically related to what is potentially maker-related. I donât see how many currently-eligible classes can âmakeâ something in the class per this unofficial description.
Rules Summary
These rules are intended to encourage teaching topics which directly relate to making, including learning tools, software, methods, and techniques needed to make something.
Requirements
- All classes are subject to scrutiny especially where subject matter is vague, potentially unrelated to making, or instruction time is less than 90 minutes to ensure quality of material and value to the DMS and members.
I propose that we define a maker-related class as one that teaches skills, methods or techniques to design, program, create, and/or build maker project(s).
I suggest that a class that met that definition wouldnât have to actually produce something in the class.
This definition would put the onus on the instructor to describe the skills, methods, or techniques they teach in the class.
Youâre welcome.
Only anecdotal. Like the fact that while 1-4 was being regularly offered, maintenance days usually only consisted of rotating the blades on the jointer and planer, and getting the sawdust out of the corners, or the fact that the only instance of every single tool in the woodshop being in operational status during the entirety of my membership was during this time. Iâm sure you can pull runtime data from the limited number of Interlocks in the shop.
Out of these 16 emails you claim to see, guess how many replies I have from you in my inbox ever? Zero (0), none, not one. I rarely email [email protected]. I make my requests directly to the person or group that is responsible for the issue. I have several requests that have been ignored, and/or met with friction and then ignored. Iâm not imagining these things or making them up. I can post them here if you would like.
No, your misinterpreting the facts. Woodshop 1-4 is a more in-depth, set up oriented course that could be part of the solution to the maintenance issues at the space. Unfortunately, it was not one that the space was willing to pay for. My breadboard class is an output oriented safety class that focuses on the minimum safety requirements to use the stationary power tools in the woodshop without getting hurt and putting the skills to use with a very basic practical application. Some students are willing to pay for a fast track, one-and-done course rather than wait and try to piece together classes from the few remaining woodshop instructors who still teach on a limited basis.
I never volunteered to teach classes for free. I volunteered to teach classes for the $50 honorarium that was offered. Those are two very different things, but both require volunteering. Plenty of skilled craftsmen and women wonât volunteer their services at all. I volunteer all the time outside of class anytime someone asks me for help. I will help anyone with any problem that I am able, and I have spent many hours doing it. Guess what happens when they ask me to do it for them instead of helping them with it? We talk about payment.
I never said any of them did a bad job. I said they have classes that cover less in more time and donât get the same treatment as I. There is more than enough information to teach 1.5 hour classes on each individual tool in the woodshop. I wonder how long the backlog to get woodshop access would be if we did it that way?
Call it what you want, but every person who has received an honorarium check from DMS is/was a contract employee of DMS (more so even than the bookkeeper and porter-who are each an employee of another corporation that was contracted by DMS.) Calling them an employee is like calling the driver of the dumpster truck or the technician who changes the air filters on the AC units employees. DMS has contract employees that make overhead door, plumbing and electrical stuff work right in the space as well. I donât see anyone shaming them for not volunteering their time.
If we were a commercial operation with production schedules to compare that would be a useful exercise. But weâre a hobby shop with sporadic usage patterns and erratic adherence to procedures.
Canât speak to your interactions with others that I was not involved in, but upon further examination I have all of three emails from you in July and November on conversations I was CCâed on as part of issues that were addressed at the time. Want me to opine on them months later anyway?
@Mrksls2 and @ESmith can we ask you two to take this conversation into a private message? While important, we are starting to get off topic from the original thread
And, while I havenât held 3 classes on the same thing in a row, this month Iâm teaching the same thing twice a row⌠twice. Thatâs not so much due to the current honorarium restrictions as my personal time limitations. Last night, while the sewing classes were restricted to 5 people (better to teach and practice if the student has a machine to work on, and weâve only got 5 â now 4 workingâŚ), and in both classes there was a late cancellation so I was only teaching 4 folks instead of the possible 5. So far both welding classes arenât full, but thereâs a few days left.
My point, supposing I have one, is that the classes are filling a specific need, as big as possible for the equipment available. Perhaps the original person who brought the scenario was just babbling? (Not Holliday) So, the honorarium auditors should have let these go through.
For me personally, I canât see running 3 real classes in a day. I donât love yâall enough to give you that much of my time, even if you are paying me. OTOH, others have given that much in a day, and sweated for itâŚ
Primarily, I was saying âHA!â to your stated (at the time of allowing 2 honorariums) theory that more folks like you (nice paycheck, some time to volunteer, no real need for extra money) would step up to fill the vacuum that was being created by blocking those who were willing to work for the rate offered. Doesnât look like thereâs a big pool of folks like ready and willing to step forward. Perhaps I should say instead âOooooo, honey. Bless yoâ heart.â
I am in no way trying to argue that we didnât need to take a stronger look at what was going on in the way of classes. In a way itâs a shame itâs hit the committees with the strongest needs (Woodshop and Laser, maybe 3d Fab). I kinda got bumped out of a couple of areas where Iâd been teaching by individuals who seemed to be paying bills by hugely expanding the offerings for those areas. But â those were smaller areas so the total didnât look that large. Those folks quit teaching when they couldnât pay bills out of what they took home. And now, since I added an area, Iâm charging the students in those original areas because I canât teach in 4 separate areas and only be paid for 3.
In a more personal aside, Iâm figuring that even though I think I hit âpay meâ on 4 classes, Iâll just get paid for 3, correct? When I put the welding classes on the calendar, I wasnât sure both sewing classes would âmakeâ, as Iâve found them notorious for not making. But â 4 students actually showed up per session (only one late cancellation per class), so they both made honorarium levels. Both welding classes are currently signed to 5 people, so theyâll probably make, too. But â thatâs just the breaks. I figure itâll get addressed when it goes through the bookkeeper.
I donât feel that it is whinging to bring to light an impediment that makes it difficult for me, and others, to teach classes at DMS. Especially when, if viewed in that particular light, reframing the honorarium as way to get materials might encourage more people to teach at DMS, even if they can afford to buy the materials on their own
I am simply going to throw my hands in the air and shout at nobody in particular, because we have now come full circle, where you WANT to use YOUR honorarium to fund teaching materials instead of approaching the chair to acquire materials for classes in that committee (which you admitted surprise for being an option, rumor mill having told you that honorariums were for purchasing materials for teaching).
I give up. Again.
I donât know why I stepped in.
let me try to clear the air
- the honorarium, as explained to me when i first joined the space, about 4 years ago, was so that people could afford to buy materials for classes that they taught
- @Photomancer informed me that committees could, not would, purchase REQUIRED materials for classes. To me, that reads that they would only do so for things like Woodshop Basics, PlasmaCAM Training, etc
- so now for classes that are not covered under that umbrella, there is still an option to get some of the materials covered. allowing the less financially fortunate to teach classes that are not required for tool use
is there an error in my conclusion?
(also I presume that you step in for the same reason that i step in: to help others out, combat misinformation, and make the Space better as a whole)
Honorarium was created as a thank you, to people that to teach classes.
Committess may choose to buy materials up front for classes that they want to have occur in their area. This is not just for tool training classes. Ask CA and electronics and many others.
If you can find a committee to purchase the materials up front for you then this works. They are under no obligation to do so.
Your error in conclusion is about what the purpose of honorarium is and how it relates to materials. They are two separate things and have nothing to do with each other.
okay, thank you for correcting my incorrect assumptions
