More Money More Instruction

This is a nice idea. You do realize that you don’t need someone else to do this? You could implement this change yourself. @John_Marlow is an expert on that page and may be willing to help.

2 Likes

The tools wiki has a column for whether training is required. AFAIK, it’s accurate or pretty close. It would be easy for someone to edit that column and every place it says Y they could add the current price.

There is a disclaimer in bold at the top of the page saying that some classes and most consumables have fees.

If we list prices on the tools wiki, we need to add a huge disclaimer that this listing is a courtesy listing and that the training cost listed on the calendar is the controlling source.

OR - I could just add a link to the Additional Costs page you created.

Also, FWIW, Creative Arts maintains a list of consumables fees within CA. I linked to it from the Additional Costs.

2 Likes

I charge $5 for the Dye Sub 101 class to limit no-shows, but those that do show leave with a $5 pack of dye sub paper.

5 Likes

If they leave with a $5 package of material that we charge $5 for, I’d call that a material fee. Machine shop does the same $5 fee for the Sherline Mill and Lathe classes.

In both cases the $5 does help with the No-Shows, but I see that as an added benefit.

Thanks for letting me know, I’ll add it to the list but as a material fee.

1 Like

I plan to learn how and likely will once back to school calms down

We could be having an interesting side discussion on how much one can require of unpaid volunteers (that already pay to be able to show up, to begin with) and balancing that with the need to provide members the information they need – and make it reasonably accessible enough, not just “out there somewhere” – to use tools. But one really poor “refutation” seems to come up every single time this gets discussed and derails the conversation, so I’d just like to kill it here:

“So just quit complaining and update the tools/cost/XYZ page” is not a rationally sound response to “XYZ page needs to be updated regularly and it’s not.” Never has been, never will be. The “solution” affects an immediate instance of a recurring problem. It does nothing to address the recurrence. And it’s the recurrence that has been the issue.

Put another way: say someone listens, and updates the page. Next week, something happens and that page is out of date. Who is responsible for fixing it? The person that catches it first? How long do these typically take to catch? How many members (most of which likely aren’t on Talk) are affected before this gets caught, by anyone? How about by anyone who isn’t just quickly skimming, has never updated a wiki, and doesn’t feel like they have the time to learn how to do it when for all they know it may become a rabbit hole?

Now, flip the script: is it fair to expect that the 'Space would provide, within reason as far as content and timeframe, adequate information for new not-super-plugged-in members to use the tools they need to? Are tool fees/whatever other part of the Wiki we want to discuss part of that? If that is a reasonable expectation that would need to be met, who should the 'Space hold responsible for meeting that need? If no one is responsible for it, is it reasonable to expect that need would be met anyway?

Any of those can be answered in the negative (or the last question in the affirmative), and if that’s the consensus it means we don’t have to worry about that particular component. That’s fine. Both sides can hold reasonable arguments for their validity.

But “just update the thing then, your complaint is invalid because you didn’t do that and/or there is no valid complaint here to be had if you’d just suck it up and update” is not one of those reasonable arguments. Period. Burn it with fire.

I suppose we both are. I do prefer my opinions to also be backed by rational argument, and typically try to present the relevant argument along with the opinion. But we’re also entitled to our own styles of discourse, of course. To each their own. Certainly “black-or-white wholesale dismissal sans nuance or justification” is a popular one these days, so maybe mine suffers in its lack of brevity. Much to learn.

Agree. However … I think that identifying the various things that need to be done by committees could help. If the committee chairs had a list of standard tasks that are desired (shop steward, procurement, keeping the wiki up to date, managing the training list, safety, or whatever) then they could ask for volunteers to own one of those tasks. I’m not saying that people would sign up for all of those tasks, but at least listing them would be a start. From time to time people ask how they can help, and sometimes they think they don’t have skills - but with a list like this there might be things people would sign up for.

I think that as we have grown, so have our expectations for what committees will do. I think it would help the committee chairs if we could construct a standard task list as a starting point.

Yep. I’m an idealist.

5 Likes

So since you skip over the first few questions, I presume there is agreement that information should be provided to members in a reasonably accessible and timely fashion, and it is your stance that that can be sufficiently done by whoever stumbles onto the page first?

I’d say the trivially simple proof against that being sufficient is the current state of the wiki itself.

The problem starts with the fact that we have opinions on what needs to be done.

For instance, there are those who seem to think that we need everything documented everywhere.

While others think a simple sign on or near the tool is all that needs to be done to convey the needed information.

This kind of difference is why many of us say “If you think something needs to be done, then do it.”

This is an instruction thread; this entire time we’ve been talking about instructional fees required to use certain tools – costs to take the training class, mainly. Most of those items do not have signs indicating that there is a class required, let alone a class requiring a fee.

Like I said: there are plenty of reasonable sides to this discussion; saying that those signs should exist can certainly be one of them. Documentation via sign on the tool via documentation on the wiki – as long as it’s documented in a way that’s reasonably accessible, it meets the stated goal.

But – as I stated, those signs are not on the vast majority of the tools that would need them. You think they “should be” there, you say? You’ve been a member a good long time. You’ve had plenty of opportunity. Why haven’t you – I’ll quote – “just [put up] the !@#% [sign], already, instead of jawin’ about doing it?” Sure have taken your sweet time – at this rate, @bknapp could take another year to update the wiki page and would still be ahead of your pace.

Oh, you’re right. That would be unreasonable to put entirely on you just because you had the idea/noticed the need and voiced it.

(gonna sit here and wait for the bonus-points extra irony on top of somebody saying “but wouldn’t it be better to get the committee chair’s approval for that…”)

2 Likes

Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

Some people lobby hard to be chair as an affirmation of popularity, but don’t actually do much work. It puts DMS in a bind. Others take the chair position in several different areas over a period of time to force a specific agenda. Almost always these grabs take place when there are others in the wings more than willing to do the work, but are rebuked for not following unwritten protocol. It’s not exactly a new problem for DMS.

Agreed that it’s time for committee expectations to be better defined.

From what I’ve seen, chairs take FAR more flak than thanks. It can be a thankless job for the amount of work and headache involved. There are far far easier ways to have an “affirmation of popularity”. And most of the chairs I’m aware of work their asses off behind the scenes. Herding cats ain’t easy.

12 Likes

I do agree, the way we currently are training new members can be greatly improved.

I don’t know who makes these decisions but it’ll be beneficial to get an in person meeting to come up with a more efficient solution.

I’m a new member and I was surprised at the availability of open classes. I didn’t realized there were too many people joining every day/week.

Most of the time people join because they have a current project and need the equipment DMS has… not being able to take a class right away forces them to cancel their membership.

then by all means, do pitch in.

You do. You and everyone else get to make or help make that decision by participating in a committee and attending the meetings and helping do the work. You get what you put into it. Sorry, but if sitting on the sidelines is your thing you have no voice hence your opinions basically mean nothing (despite what powers that be try to get you to buy into).

you’re not wrong. But making sure they don’t cut body parts off is more important than their $50.

3 Likes

I agree. We are a victim of our own success. IMO we need to start thinking about at what level do we actively stop recruiting/holding open houses at this location with available resources and instructor cadre.

I don’t favor a “hard limit”, if there are word-of-mouth or people that just show up that want to join, fine. But I think until we move to larger digs, I’d say once we hit 1,700 we need to look at greatly reducing or eliminating weekly tours.

Our current net growth is ~ 0.97 members a day based on last 298 days we’ve had a net growth of 289 members (1,395 on 11-8-16, currently 1,625)

We lose probably about 15 to 20 a month, so we actually have about 45+ new members a month needing training. I’d SWAG that the highest demand by student count for required training in these ares: Wood Shop, 3D Fab, Lasers. Next tier would be: Welding, PlasmaCam, Auto Lift, Wood Lathe, Metal Lathes, Milling Machines, Vinyl Cutter. Items in bold typically have class sizes of 5 or 6 and are the 2.5 ~3.5 hour classes. So these are high demand classes.

If we were to stabilize at 20 new replacement members vs 45 new members, we’d probably have the backlog cleared up in a couple of months. Without some throttling back we’ll be at ~1,731 by year’s end and ~1,979 a year for now at current rates. I don’t think that is sustainable without dissatisfaction becoming a major problem.

Not sure what the right number is, but I’d guess 1,700 at this location would be very sustainable. But what that number is, is something we collectively should be thinking about.

3 Likes

This is really good data … I have a proposal I’ve been working on the past couple of weeks that was precipitated by a previous thread that might help move DMS into a more effective path. I hope to present that to the Talk folks for discussion soon.

2 Likes

I’m not sure that reducing the tours will net us a lower intake. We already have folks showing up spontaneously at non-tour times to see the place and join. If we reduced tours, we’d increase the random. As a person who tends to hang out, I prefer funneling as many of those folks into tours as possible.

Now, the Open House in October is probably an event we could lose, since we don’t need to boost our signal.

3 Likes

is there a way to clean up some of the backlog or some classes?
We need some way to get more folks thru the basic classess

Woodshop basics is the Big one, it is a long class, that ties up the woodhop
for quite a while and even more important the teachers tiwm, that
limits teachers

Now I am looking at this from outside, so woodshop folks, please tell chime in wtih the problesm with my su
ggesteions

first, Most the safety part to a lecture class, include things like
how to cange the dust collection bag,
this would shorten the length of the basics class, and likley it would actually
train foks better, Right now, there is so much covered in the baxics class
that folks may not be absorbing it all, some things get lost

Eliminate the need for the basic class for some tools like the drill preas
some things line the bandsaw, chop saw could easily have a video to cover the
basics of use, That would reduce the demand

Now that would mainly leave table saws, joiner and planer for the basics class
that class would be shorter and mitght well have more folks to be willing to teach it

We also need to figure out a way to get thru the backlog of folks waiting, we may have some
teachers waiting for a basics class that already know the basics, Maybe there should be an appeal to folks with
experience and offer special classes for them, It is not hard to aske foks some question to
determine if they do know what they are doing,

Now What problems would there be with something like this?