I’m in. You have my contact info, so feel free to give it to whoever would be interested.
When I was new, having a few people that I felt comfortable going to when I had questions was invaluable.
Ok, couple years down the road, that really hasn’t changed 
I love Kris idea and count me in
As to Pearce s concern, at least this way we would know that someone
might have some issues and folks could be alerted to keep an eye on them
and to offer help
A similar concern has been raised in the past regarding teaching basic safety courses.
To sum up, can a teacher of a basic safety course deny access to a student who has completed the course but does not appear to comprehend, intend to follow, or capably demonstrate proper use of a tool?
I say yes. If we are counting on you to teach then we have given you authority to show others how to use our tools. If you feel like a person is not able to follow what you have taught then I would want you to tell them they cannot use the tool/area until they have the ok from the chair of that committee space. The chair can then make that decision. But I will tell you right now that if you said you didn’t think that a person could follow our safety rules then I would back you up 100%.
IMO, that teacher has an obligation to deny access. A teacher who feels that the student can’t or won’t properly use the tool is negligent in allowing the student to continue.
(1) The student is potentially a hazard to himself/herself.
(2) The student is potentially a hazard to others.
(3) The student runs the risk of damaging the equipment.
This is no different than a student taking a practical or written exam and failing it.
I say yes also. Safety is overriding concern, theirs and equipment and people around them.
I’m in to help with new members.
Wouldn’t it be better if someone with experience at the space identifies this as opposed to it going unchecked? Maybe if that is a concern another member be asked to concur, possibly even a board member.
We currently do not screen any members of DMS. If anything this suggested program may raise concerns well before we have an incident, rather than in the past having the incident then concern being raised.
That all said, the issues raised by @PearceDunlap are an incredible minority group within the DMS and shouldn’t be used to distract from @Kriskat30’s goals in this program. As we really only have 3 examples to pull from in all of our membership to date.
That is what I am saying. Having a mentor system may help identify a potential issue before it becomes one. Additionally, if the mentor feels there may be a concern a second opinion should be the first step.
And it might have stopped something like the last couple of folks
Ther reason that store like Walmart have greeters is to cut shoplifting
If a person is spoken to, they are less likely shoplift
Here we have a continuous improvement discussion going. And that is a great thing. I could see participating in this plan. However, currently, in the machine shop we are getting quite behind in our teaching on just the “training required” tools, never mind the more advanced offerings that are desired.
Because there is a copious inflow of new members, it might be more functional to break up the task in a way that pairs nicely the primary or initial interest of the prospective member and the committee that would most impacted, at least to start with.
In this type of plan a prospective new member would identify one of the 29 committees as the first or primary interest. Then the prospect would be granted some level of interaction with that committee and that may be how the “buddy” gets sourced. It would be up to a committee to “sponsor” a prospect’s membership in DMS. After the committee sponsors the member, the membership is for the entire DMS not just that one committee. So, while the sponsoring committee gets to foist the new member on the whole of the DMS, that sponsoring committee would usually be the one with the most at stake, benefiting from the participation of the excellent new member or enduring the pain of a trail of broken tools and rude behavior. In this manner, each committee would deal with a smaller number of prospects of particular interest to it.
This would likely be more functional than throwing a large number of prospects at some new member orientation committee or “buddy” pool. There could still be a group that develops the support material and resources that all committees would need, such as online orientation, legal guidelines if some prospects must be “rejected”, spreading of the best practices developed by various committees and even the best practices of other makerspaces around the country and world.
I wouldn’t expect us to become adroit at rejecting prospects as we just don’t have any sort of exclusively culture at DMS, and DMS might not have had its current level of success if it had had such. (Rodney Dangerfield wouldn’t have joined DMS). Still, some persons with poor impulse control might get impatient with a slower, more deliberate full membership process and go away before getting the run of the place.
The larger committees such as woodshop would be identified more often as a first interest, but these are the same committees that have the most members to process the sponsoring and supply the buddies.
The online and on site training needs to work on communicating the distinction between “member” and “customer”, the most important operating concept.
That is my two cents.
I think this makes sense. I think it would be easiest to have a list of mentoring volunteers and their specialties. Let the newbies select a mentor based on mutual interest. Limit 1 newbie, per mentor, per month.
Count me in. I’m not there all the time, but am more than ready to help - especially since most of my classes will be held on Thursday nights.
I can be a sponsor