REMINDER: Please clean up after yourself

[wandrson]

Just a reminder folks, that one of the only rules we have at the maker space is that you are expected to clean up after yourself. I was just in the machine shop and had to spend a fair bit of time throwing out pieces of garbage as well as putting away a TON of tools. Nearly every box of pin gauges were out on the workshop table instead of being returned to the area under the table they were taken from. The shell mill was left in the machine and further the draw bar was tightened so much that I needed to use the brass hand sledge hammer to ‘break’ it loose to allow me to remove the shell mill.

Also the mill DRO and power feed were left on (and the power feed was in the highest speed position). These need to be turned off when your done with them.

It is NOT being excellent to your fellow members to leave messes that they need to clean up before they can work on what they came to the space for…

So just a reminder of a few of the basic ‘rules’

1. Clean up your trash when your finished. This includes metal chips, drinks, food, etc. This includes sweeping up your mess of chips on the floor.
2. Put all of the tools away back where they belong when your done. If you don’t know where they belong ask on the [email protected] mailing list.
3. Turn off the power feeed and the DRO on the bridgeport when your done.

[zmetzing]

As noted by others, this communications forum is only reaching a small fraction of our membership. We likely need some LARGE graphic signs saying “clean up after yourself”. Perhaps in three 1940’s “Loose lips sink ships” style?

[frank_lima]

[wandrson]

Yep, but if the small fraction that participate in the talk forum gently remind others they encounter to ‘clean up after themselves’ it can’t hurt.

Frankly, I wonder how anyone can say they need to be told they should throw out their food containers or put things back where they got them,

[bscharff]

Indeed. If you need to be told to clean up after yourself, you don’t need to be at a Makerspace. The board can and WILL suspend people for not cleaning up after yourself. Also a reminder to committee chairpersons… you have the power to ban someone from your committee’s area!

[heyheymama]

[heyheymama]

[Awesomer]

Keeping the shop clean

Ok folks I spent several hours cleaning up the saw dust in the majority of the wood shop. Please work to keep it clean like it is, it take minutes to clean up after yourself with the vacuum. Several pieces of equipment had woodchips jammed in the motor. While I was cleaning I watched 5 different people not clean up after themselves. Now that it’s clean there is no reason not to keep it up.

Then Many many posts later…

Keeping the shop clean

I am Shocked that after 38 posts, amongst presumed to be responsible adults, cleaning after one’s self is still being debated… This will not be fixed by an EMPLOYEE being hired. Or Dumping “cleaning” as a task on other members* Your mother does not work at DMS. Everyone must clean who uses the space… period. This should be true in every space, at DMS and elsewhere.

Just look at @frank_lima 's numbers, that is raw statistical data and it shows who is responsible: those who use the space. SHOCKING REVELATION to be sure.

There is no other method, taking into consideration who and what is all involved at DMS. The next available passive method would be RFID every station, and to use it, members would log on using the Tag. But that will become a nightmare, I have seen the unintended consequences that result using the RFIDs in Controlled Industrial Areas…

Therefore, I respectfully refer everyone to the method I listed in my previous post.

The picture above show accumulation, more than one person created that situation overtime. If everyone cleans around the tool, even if the station was dirty before they got there, and after they are done using it, then there is no further problem.

…X…

= We do need to figure out a list of duties for said members, since the honor system is not working. Perhaps a log of accomplished tasks said discounted member must submit to a board member that specifically documents what the discounted member volunteered in the last month; to retain that “starvy hacker” status.

http://www.leedsconfidential.co.uk/i/FTH/3D2J_M.jpg

Keeping on the theme of ships:

I am slowly being convinced that this or a derivative of it, is the Only thing that will actually.

…X…

[heyheymama]

Re: the “your mother does not work here” trope.
If your mother was here and if DMS recognized her work with a paycheck, she still wouldn’t clean up after you. You are not 5 anymore.

[wandrson]

If your mother was here and if DMS recognized her work with a paycheck, she still wouldn’t clean up after you. You are not 5 anymore.

Depends upon the Mother. I am thinking that a large number of mother’s would (and still do) clean up after their adult children… After all how else could we have so many people who think leaving food containers out on tables is alright?

[Robert_Davidson]

FYI
"
All members are expected to maintain a safe and clean environment at all times.
"
In the code of conduct people that don’t clean up can and will be banned from the space.

There is no reason not to clean up and in places like the WoodShop creates a dangerous situation.

[wandrson]

In the code of conduct people that don’t clean up can and will be banned from the space.

I don’t disagree with this rule, but I personally haven’t seen it applied in the short time I have been a member, and suspect the reason is that it is felt to be ‘overly harsh’. I would suggest that for a first offence something like ‘community service’ would be a more appropriate punishment. Say, requiring the offender to empty all of the trash cans and/or sweep and pick up all of floor space in the workshop. In other words require the offender to both clean the space and do something that will make it less likely they will commit the same offence in the future.

[Robert_Davidson]

It has been done in the past but yes it is a harsh decision. But in the end we don’t have anyone to enforce policies so as a community we have to take action.

Historically it goes something like this

1st offense
Person is identified
Committe head normally emails them and explain what they have done wrong.

2nd offense
Committees ban them from using the area for a certain time.

3rd offense
BOD usually bans the person for a period of time.

With all that being said it’s more important than ever before to get these bad apples out of play if they don’t read the the rules they probably have not been through safety training and end up hurting themselves or the equipment.

So I suspect that the amount of chances will head down as we as a committee and organization better document and convey what the community expects from its members.

[jast]

In the code of conduct people that don’t clean up can and will be banned from the space.

Part of the problem here, too, is enforcement. Banning one member on the sayso of another is bad juju.
Envision:

Member A uses the table saw.
Member B is in line right behind to use the table saw.
Member A says to Member B “do I need to clean up, or would you prefer I get out of your way and you can clean up when you’re done?”
B says “No, go ahead, I got it.”
Member A goes on his way, free and clear, to do whatever it is Members A do.
Member B starts making cuts, then walks out of the woodshop for a moment to test fit his cut.
Member C walks in and, seeing no one using the table saw, sets out his work.
Member D walks in, and, seeing Member C preparing to use the table saw, and the mess from 2 users strewn about, says to self “That bastard BETTER clean up, because I’m NOT working in that filth!”
Member B walks in to see Member C preparing to use the table saw and thinking “oh well, I’ll grab lunch” leaves to grab a bite.
Member C realises he’s forgotten a crucial piece, and walks away with all his stuff, thinking “Darn, I wish I’d remembered that piece so I could have used the table saw…”
Member D then reports Member C, whom he witnessed not cleaning up, and we ban Member C from the space.

Do you find this “fair” or “equitable” or acceptable, if you put yourself in each member’s shoes?
As Member B, do you really want to wait around for Member A to clean up when you’re willing to do it so you can get to work quicker?
As Member C aren’t you going to be mad as hell? But what do you say in your defence? Are you allowed to mount a defence? Is there any defence?
What if you figure out it’s technically, theoretically, Member B who is to blame. Does he just get blindsided by a ban when he comes back from lunch?
Is Member A blameless?
I know nothing is perfect, and we have to work with what we have, and I don’t really have better suggestions, but I am saying that just because you witness a single event, be careful about labeling a person or getting emotional about it.
The right answer, to my mind, would have been for Member D to say “Hey there goodbuddy C, are you done here? Because I wanted to use the table saw but it’s in an awful state.”
Hopefully Member C would say “Oh, it was like that when I got here, but you’re right, it needs cleaned up. Let me help you with that. Man, I forgot the one piece I actually needed it for and now here I am cleaning up someone else’s mess. I didn’t see the guy ahead of me…”
Then they could clean up a bit, join hands, and sing kumbaya together, each having sacrificed a few minutes of their day to fix a wrong created by neither.

While I’ve been putting this in, Robert_Davidson has done some clarification. Thank you. I don’t think it completely negates my points.

[wandrson]

Part of the problem here, too, is enforcement. Banning one member on the sayso of another is bad juju.Envision:

You may not be aware, but the space is blanketed with security cameras that record. I doubt anyone has been banned or otherwise punished without having video evidence.

[jast]

You may not be aware, but the space is blanketed with security cameras that record. I doubt anyone has been banned or otherwise punished without having video evidence.

I am acutely aware, but thank you.
So far, no mention of “going to the video” has been made. It’s been referenced as an option many times, but so far, no mention of its actually being used in a ban.
And since you bring it up, what do we do in the scenario I outlined, if we DO go to video? (I am under the impression we have no or unreliable audio)

[wandrson]

Member B walks in to see Member C preparing to use the table saw and thinking “oh well, I’ll grab lunch” leaves to grab a bite.

In your scenario, this is the first real problem. Member B knew they were ‘on the hook’ to clean up and just because someone else is now using the equipment they are still able to ‘clean up’ the area. And they are also perfectly able to actually talk to member C about how long they will be so that they can clean up the mess they made and the mess they agreed to clean up from the prior member.

The only real issue is if we stopped at the first part of your scenario and Member B denied he agreed to clean up for member A. I doubt the video recordings have useful audio. But frankly in that case I would suggest that we have two members that need chastisement. Since neither member cleaned up after themselves, and presumably member a, while trusting B to keep their word, is still responsible for their own mess.

All that said, I really don’t think what ifs are particularly useful here. I think we need more signage to make it as clear as humanly possible what we expect. We also need some more visible chstisement of members who fail to live up to that standard. It is clear we have a real problem with people cleaning up and putting away things. Some of this is because of lack of knowledge (where things go), but some is just plain laziness or carelessness. A scarlet letter approach can serve to reduce the problem by not only providing chastisement to the actual person, but a cautionary tail for all members.

[Robert_Davidson]

Fully agree Walter the intent should be education.

We can’t armchair solve all the If situations.

But we can educate new members of the expectations.

[jast]

A scarlet letter approach can serve to reduce the problem by not only providing chastisement to the actual person, but a cautionary tail for all members.

I don’t disagree, but only because I don’t have a better way. Having repeatedly been on the receiving end of unfounded accusations resulting in public humiliation I simply caution that eye witnesses can be mistaken, people need not be above pettiness to be in a position of authority, and sometimes innocents get caught in the pincers.

[bscharff]

Quick note… we record video ONLY, NO audio. The microphones are disabled in software on the cameras themselves, and BlueIris (the software DVR we use) is set to drop/ignore any audio it receives.
We set these because there were concerns about wiretapping and the law; @Robert_Davidson can elaborate if needed.

But anyways, most of the cameras at the space are capable of 1536p, but we lowered them to 1080p. We can CLEARLY see who did what, and exactly when. The problem is that we’re all volunteers, so we don’t review the footage unless we HAVE to… and even then, it takes us a while to get around to it (again, all volunteers).