Regarding ROAST Classes and Their Availability (Req'd Opns & Safety Training)

Education
#1

SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE TL;DR version in italics…

Something that I’ve noticed is that the demand for ROAST ( Required Operations and Safety Training ) classes outpace the supply of teachers. Especially in areas of high demand like woodshop and metal shop

This isn’t really news, I know, but with the potential expansion coming up I’d like to see a more formalized path for members to become authorized to train other members.

I’ve noticed that when classes aren’t on the calendar there is often the offer for 1-on-1 training.
I haven’t been able to locate anything that describes the procedures for passing on and documenting that info.

Can someone elucidate the rules regarding this kind of training?

From what I understand so far about becoming authorized to use any equipment is that you have to be added to a list upon completion.

So for one on one training, I assume the trainers are adding members to the list once they’ve been approved?

For example, right now if someone wanted to use the vinyl cutter I could show them how to use it without issue. The hypothetical problem would be that they’re not officially “authorized” to do so.
I realize that its really unlikely that anyone would be confronted about whether or not they took the vinyl class/got training and it’s even less likely that something awful would come of it. Nonetheless, if it was me, I’d wanna be on that dang list!

But you can see why this becomes an issue in more dangerous areas like metal shop.
For example I was in there and I overheard a member say “this machine doesn’t have a training required sign on it, so it’s all good” Is that really true? It kind of goes against what I’ve heard more senior members say…
Also I read a post here on Talk recently which mentioned that a member had been grinding soft metals. (I didn’t even know this was a safety hazard until that post)

If the culture encourages “one on one” training then we need to make it clear that only certain members are authorized to do so, or we will get members parroting things that they might have mis-heard with nothing but good intentions.

TL;DR

I feel that the casual nature of one on one training is great for teaching, but it leaves gaps in the official process which can cause confusion that potentially puts the safety of other makers at risk.

we have a wealth of knowledge among us, but accessing it can be cryptic. Let’s talk about how we can lower the time between a member joining and getting up to speed on training, and make it easier for members to become authorized to teach other members. WITHOUT SACRIFICING SAFETY FOR CONVENIENCE.

Waiting more than a month to get training on the one tool that you potentially joined to use (especially if you’re already a pro) is a bit too much to stomach for new members and I can’t blame them at all. Until we get training “fixed” we will continue having a really high turnover rate.

What has been tried before? Did it work? Why or why not?

6 Likes
Please put a welding class on the weekday schedule
#2

Tom, I agree with you. I delayed my membership for about a month because the class I needed was always full out for months in my case. I finally heard or read someone that said to just show up and see if there are any no-shows. So I joined and did that on my first couple of classes and got in. As a new member it was and still is a bit of a challenge to get enough training to make your membership worthwhile in the short term.

To me, it would see obvious that a class waiting list would tell us that a class is in demand and automatic notification of that list when a class opens up could then clear the list, but not sign anyone up automatically. A person could add their name again if they didn’t sign up or needed to wait until the next time.

Asking or assuming we should load and monitor the calendar list every day is a bit draconian in this age of pocket communications technology.

2 Likes
#3

I hadn’t thought of this. I kind of imagined the instructor or student manually removing themselves from the list, but I can see that working too. If you get the notification and don’t make the class then you know to add yourself back to the list.

Couldn’t agree more!

#4

There will be a waiting list…shortly.

I have a Google form setup. Just need to make sure all the required data is there.

This will be crude. Right now DMS is blind to demand. It will give us some data instead of no data. It will be a step forward. It will give us more data to work with.

There is a proposal coming to change the Classroom Committee to the Education Committee. There are some rules tweaks to make some classes easier to teach. And more…

Yes, I was being somewhat vague intentionally.

4 Likes
#5

@Haley_Moore also set up a Google form, though I don’t know how to get that information to other folks.

Why the deliberate vagueness?

#6

I mentioned in the woodshop meeting the idea of creating two classes, one being your real class and another one being the waiting list. It would show up in the calendar nicely, integrate with our existing systems, and show exactly how many people couldn’t make it in the FULL class. It would be great for analytics and potentially easy for the teacher to find some fill-in students.

“FULL: Woodshop 101”
“Woodshop 101 Waiting List”

6 Likes
Calendar Waiting List
#7

I love it, requires zero updating of the system

#8

I wanted to show the list to all the committee chairs before I sent it out to everyone, lest I miss any tools that need training. Or do you think I should just post it as is?

#9

shrug sounds like someone else is doing it?

#10

The DMS calendar system is a home brew. @denzuko was maintaining a GitHub list of proposed enhancements to the Calendar system. This might or might not already be encompassed in that list. I’m also guessing that some type of volunteers are needed to make those enhancements a reality.

As an occasional instructor, if we implement any kind of waiting list there are a couple important items I’d like to see incorporated. @diplomat, I wouldn’t call it a waiting list. I’d call it a Notification list. I’d say something like, “click here if you’d like to be notified when the next class is scheduled”. It needs to clearly state that:
(1) This is a notification system for the next class.
(2) You do not have permission to just show up to the full class
(3) It’s just a notification system and you will not be automatically signed up.
(4) you will not be given priority over any other registrants
(5) your name is removed from the notification list once you are notified of the very next class

There is actually an official training-required matrix list of tools that was developed in 2017. It uses input from the committees and is based on a consistent risk matrix of risk severity versus probability. It considers potential injury risk to an operator, risk of damaging a tool, and the cost of that repair. Something that only costs $100 to repair and can’t hurt you wouldn’t require training but something that costs $5000 to repair or could kill you definitely does. In the past some committees required training on some tools just to give you the super-secret password to access the consumables, and we’re trying to eliminate that practice. Yes, before all the screaming starts, I know that the list is hard to find. @AlexRhodes told me yesterday that he plans to put that matrix on the wiki.

[EDIT Below]

I like this idea. I think the broader name is good. I’d like to think that there could be three SIGs under that committee; Classroom SIG (the facilities and the resources), Calendar SIG, and Training Development SIG. [EDIT2: If we make SIG’s, I’ll make separate sub-categories for each on TALK so it’s easier to navigate in the future]

5 Likes
#11

Tool Matrix

I started putting it on the wiki today and backed out a for now because there are a lot of classes that the matrix says don’t need training but are listed as training required on the tools list. I could just push through and list it but I don’t want to cause confusion for people looking at the tools list.

My conundrum is should I overwrite what is listed for “Classes Required” on the tools list? Personally I want to as some classes haven’t had classes on the calendar since the beginning of the year (I did not search back farther, so it could be longer) and some that did only happened once or twice.

Like what Daniel is saying is that there is no “path” to approval. Asking around to see if someone can show you and making sure they are teaching the same things as the other people is just horribly inefficient.

Circle of life…

2 Likes
#12

Just out of curiosity, which tools are you talking about?

#13

Just a few that I spot checked

Sewing machines / Serger
Resin printer (few in Jan /Feb a lot of classes in March but then it tapers off)
Vacuum Former
Metaza

#14

I took a serger class (Jan 30) and vacuum former class (Jan 3) so I know those have been taught this year.

The sergers were both inoperable for awhile and have been recently repaired.

#15

Yeah my original quote was cut off.

1 Like
#16

I’m surprised that sewing machines, serger, vacuum former (and possibly Metaza) came out with training required on the new matrix. Injury risk is fairly low and so is cost to repair.

#17

They didn’t. It’s the other way. They are listed as no training required by the matrix but the tool list in the wiki currently has them as training required.

2 Likes
#18

What is status of equipment in Jewelry /Small metals?

There is a JSM that is superposed to be required but it is more of an over view
and doesmt really teach and tools,