I personally believe that @opcode is not an effective chairperson and should be replaced. To that end, I have added an agenda item to the next board meeting. I ask that members of the science committee discuss and select their recommendation for a new chairperson. In particular, I would ask that someone step up who:
Will help keep the committee’s goals focused on achievable objectives
Will not cause undue drama
Will take the time to motivate and empower volunteers, as well as volunteering themselves to get things done
Effective chairs are those that work with the membership/volunteers and the Board of Directors to accomplish goals, while understanding some of the unique challenges of dealing with volunteers and limited funding. If you are thinking about chairing the committee but have questions/concerns, feel free to PM or e-mail me and I’ll be glad to provide insight where I can.
I will throw in my $.02 here too. Let me state that I harbor no personal bias against @opcode. In fact, there is a good measure of respect and gratitude for stepping up to chair and having passion for his role. Of all the areas at the space, Science is the most broad in terms of tools and disciplines. Running and organizing a committee where only a minor segment of the organization is interested in a sliver of the practice, makes it VERY difficult to organize, create mind share and momentum. As an example, I bet there are 10x more people interested in Brandon’s paint booth than food dehydration. In any setting, a limited voice makes accomplishing even the best of intentions difficult. All of that summarizes to me saying, “I hear the passion in his voice and understand why Richard is frustrated and I empathize with him.” With my understanding also comes my agreement that Sciences needs a reboot.
I believe for the next round of Science to be successful, The Board needs to put some boundaries on what all areas are in scope (and maybe the title of Science is too broad to begin with). Covering everything from bees to x-rays is too wide scope for anyone to succeed.
It would be very helpful is the members would post in the forums what they would like Science to focus on.
In the spirit of the second post as an outsider looking in with neither a stake nor a solid opinion on the Science Committee:
I’m at a bit of a loss for what science does. I’ve given a few tours as a casual member of the PR committee and point out the visible things - the aquaculture setup (which seems to need some TLC), the freeze dryer (which I gather is suffering from the loss of some important supplies but is being worked on) , the nitrogen laser (which I hear emits quite the array of sparks in operation), the 3D printed prosthetic, the stack of networking gear. I know there have been classes scheduled, some projects worked on, and I occasionally see Richard and a few others in the area, but I’m really at a loss to explain it to others. I read on the wiki that meetings are on Saturday at 4PM - a time when I’m usually departing.
Perhaps some focus is needed as has been mentioned in the previous post, but I’m afraid that I’m in no position to offer specific suggestions.
I remember back in 3rd grade when it was time to pick an essay topic for the year. One student (Mark, I think?) picked the subject of “fish”. Teachers thought it would be great and approved it.
However, by February, Mark was drowning in a stack of encyclopedias and only had a huge (and still growing) outline. By now, the rest of us were already working on our final cardboard displays and such.
The solution was to change the topic to “Sharks”.
I remember as the years progressed, my elementary school teachers often referred to this lesson. Hence why it is coming up again…
I’m supportive of the diversity Science Committee represents. The thing is, since projects and work areas are finite expressions of resources, it seems necessary to set a workable focus or risk stagnation/overwhelming demands.
Previously, Science was “Bio” which was a large but manageable categorization. Has anyone thought about ways to re-categorize and sharpen the focus of “Science”? Or is that even possible?
Just brainstorming out loud… that’s all. Please go about your day as usual.
I’ve been thinking recently that Science might fit into the Makerspace model better if the committee’s focus was more on providing the tools necessary to support science projects rather than focusing on the projects themselves. The fume hood mentioned recently is a good example (yes I know it requires venting…it’s just an example). The Science area would provide laboratory tools to enable projects in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. This is essentially how all of the other committees work.
Edit: I have no preference one way or another as to who is the committee chair. My comment is chair agnostic.
I am new to the space and when I read about the things being done in the science area… I think ‘Science’ is an appropriate title for the committee, however being that I don’t know the history or observed the area’s inhabitants on a daily basis… Are there that many different people using the area or is there an outcry for those wanting to use the area to have more focus?
Without knowing much about the going ons of the committee I would have to assume it is an area that contains the projects of a certain few…? I have noted that there have been some classes being offered, but I don’t know what the turn out was or if those who attended were only the same few people who may also be Science Committee members.
Would a more focused content actually help resolve the issues others have with the current committee status?
I’ve been to a couple of the classes and they both had good attendance with people that were not on the Science committee as far as I know. There is also a weekly Neural Electric Interface Working Group that is actively attended.
