I certainly think a project that is intended to build a tool to be kept at the makerspace should be explained to the members and have their support. A project built with makerspace funds owes a presentation to justify it. And any tool kept at the makerspace clearly must have classes in its operation to empower all users to benefit from the tool.
That said, I resent giving a presentation on any project that does not meet those criteria. That is not about stealth or secrecy, it is just no ones business in that case. If someone has a project they can do for themselves, by themselves, using science committee tools, and keep everything in their private space between visits, there is no more reason to present their project unless they want to share. The only reason I can see to give a public presentation on a well contained private project is if it requires a team and the presentation is a recruitment pitch.
I get intensely nervous every time I hear āeducation is one of the primary functions of makerspaceā. Like many 501C3 educational organizations, a very specific kind of education is part of our mission. Running a high school or a course in French history or general science does not really fit, I would not deny anyone who enjoys doing that sort of thing the opportunity to do it, but makers who are NOT into this should not be obliged to do it. I enthusiastically agree that to earn our tools we are obligated to train people in their use, just like any other committee, but that is something else altogether. To really empower people to make with these excellent tools, they need to be trained.
I see āeducationā being used in a way that has nothing to do with that mission, and i see it more in science than any other committee. That may be the curse of being the only committee that has the same name as a school subject. Most of our classes are not about how to operate the tools we have or explain what they are used for, as is the case for other committees.