They didn’t look like any of the pics I could find for Taig mills.
I got the motors today thanks to Brown Santa (UPS) and installed them. They had the same color of wires but different pinouts and I had to re-wire them in 180 degrees out from what the other one was according to their data sheets. Once I got them rewired the router head would plunge into the material instead of lifting away from it. 
2 Classes submitted: Sat 12th at 11 AM and Mon 14th at 7:30 PM. Should see them on the calendar in 72 hours. Capped at 8 persons each.
Did this ever get calendered? I haven’t seen it come up yet?
Based on the time stamp on @jphelps post, they should hit the calendar around 10:45pm tonight.
The 72 hour period on this one is scheduled to end about 11:00pm tonight.
Ok thanks, why does it take 72 hours to post?
It is a function of the new system. To explain, lets start with the old system. In that system you submitted, and you required three approvals (emailed to teacher) from the five board members to be eligible. Due to the volume of mail they received, they would occasion not notice that classes didn’t get approvals.
SO, we now have a system where the volunteer auditors have a 72 hour period to review the request and reject it. So now the default is, if no active rejections it gets approved, where as the prior default was not enough active accepts and it was rejected.
So basically, if the auditors never look at, then in 72 hours it gets approved automatically?
Can it be approved by the auditors before 72 hours and thus show up earlier than that time frame?
No, but I wish it could be. I look at every class every morning, so they all get looked at to some degree. 
Not according to the rules/functions I can see. BUT I KNOW that at least one class was approved ahead of time by a admin… but I believe that was to deal with mistakes in the system getting it scheduled in time…
It also takes a little bit more than 72hrs. It’s not on the dot 72hrs. I’ve had several classes show up after say 72.5 hours.
Believe it or not, this is an improvement. It used to be you had to submit days in advance.
Under the “Acceptance” model until you received the requisite number of approvals, it wasn’t approved but DID show up on the calendar. This sometimes occurred as late as the day of the class (and on at least one rare occasion afterwards) because others thought someone else was doing it.
This system, which is a “Negative Response Required” basically allows people to view it, if it’s okay then, do nothing it gets approved. If there is a problem, it’s stooped and the instructor knows at least 10 days in advance and nothing goes to the calendar.
And the pool of people reviewing went from the five BoD members to as many approved audiors as the BoD sees fit to approve.
Sounds like a big improvement for sure. I would think a next stage improvement would be automatic approval by an auditor signing off on it that gets it up quicker on the calender. The 72 hours for a good class seems arbitrary. It seems to me that the instructor is committed to that class on that date and time when submitting, but needs to find out if it will or will not get approved in 72 hours. Thus shortening the time prospective attendees have to register and probably pushes out dates by the instructor because of this.
Just seems like an automatic approval by any of the auditors would make sense.
New system is much better than the old I was thinking it’s 48 hours for non-honorarium or 72 for honorarium though. I donated to CA but it’s still 72 hours regardless.
@Owen_Soccer22, @wandrson, @Photomancer, @jphelps … I responded to Owen’s question in the “New Calendar And Honorarium Process” thread in order to try to get this thread back on topic.
There are some things that are questionable, 72 hours gives time for the auditors to discuss which often happens when I was taking part before something was rejected. This is also what is driving the more defined rules.
I know you’ve heard this before, EVERYTHING done at the Space is by volunteers. For the size organization we are this is remarkable. We deserve congratulations - it means our dues are going towards our mission, we really have very little non-core mission spending.
IMO You don’t want to give acceptance authority to one individual, this makes it really susceptible to to abuse. Some classes that are are taught routinely: 3D Printing, Wood Shop Intro, Laser, Bridgeport, HAAS, Sewing, Intro to Leather working, etc. have pretty much as far as subject matter been vetted and usually have a link to course materials. So they go through without problems. But it also allows to review who the instructor is - which goes to quality at times.
i believe hearing we had almost 200 classes one month recently, that represents $20,000 in Honorariums, both Committee and Instructor portions. (I think in June I pulled out all honorariums paid over the past year, 62% of that $10K stayed within DMS, meaning 12% of instructors donated everything to the committee. It was actually a higher percentage because of the way HAAS instructor fees had been handled - they went out then came back as a matching contribution Probably closer to 65%-66%).
But given the number and dollars involved, call it $100K/year, I think the process we now have and are fine tuning will result in better classes and better use of DMS funds… Also, this review process serves as an internal on-going true audit process against favoritism in the allocation of DMS funds, When a class is authorized, an Honorarium is an authorized expenditure commitment of DMS.
You may want to volunteer to become an auditor. It takes only a couple of minutes on average twice a day to do it, you are looking at the newly submitted classes. Even if you do it every other day, you’ll still be looking at ll the classes submitted, Become involved!
When including both portions that would be $20,000
200 * ($50 + $50) = $20,000
I saw that before I saw your comment … and I’m on FC!
Ah, its only ten grand. What is that among friends?
I guess what I am thinking about are those classes that are routine as you mentioned, as long as nothing has changed, they could easily be posted quickly by an auditor that is familiar with that one class.
Certainly, new classes that are unfamiliar to the auditors would take more scrutiny and investigation, etc. but the routine classes seem to be just that routine. They have already been approved once why go through the process again.
There seems to be a wrinkle in the system that I just learned by this thread. It’s the money angle. There is a fiduciary responsibility that goes along for sure. Perhaps with the money angle, more time is needed. It brings in the ability to make more money for that committee.
As far as becoming involved, give me time to wade through the space and trainings and get my stuff rolling, then I’ll be glad to help out where it makes sense.
I do have an idea about intern trainings for more advanced levels of knowledge that I would like to discuss sometime in the near future.
