Short of classrooms, the current system gives preference to events

Education
#1

I think we can all agree that space, in the prime time, is getting hard to come by for classes.

I believe part of the problem is that our current rules favor events/non-honorarium classes, since they can be scheduled with no more then a 48-hour notice/review AND can schedule out months in advance. The result of which, is they can book up rooms regularly for most of the year.

So, I would like to start a discussion about creating a more equitable set of rules. Here are my draft proposals.

  1. Have the same group and rules responsible for both honorarium classes and other classroom reservations.
  2. Restrict advance bookings to six weeks into the future.
  3. Reduce the honorarium advance notice to 120 hours from 240 hours.
  4. Restrict reservations to a single room for the same group/event without approval of classroom committee chair.
  5. Eliminate reservations to non-DMS events. If only one or two participants are members, but the group is a non-DMS organization, they would not be able to reserve space. As an example, the Farmers Branch society of squirrel observers and their monthly club meeting.
5 Likes
#2

Not really true. Honorarium classes can also be scheduled the same number of months in advance. There is no real advantage in a 48-hour review versus 72 other than it appears on the calendar a day sooner; it does not affect the ability to reserve a room.

The only real advantage is that an event or non-honorarium class may be scheduled in less than 240 hours.

There is no reason an honorarium class should have any advantage over a non-honorarium class.

Having the same group can be done today with no rule or code changes. What do you mean by the differences in the rules?

Again, there is no reason an honorarium class should have any advantage over a non-honorarium class.

That will severely limit the usefulness of reserving a room here. External groups who meet here need to be able to have a reliable schedule they can publicize.

If your intent is to reduce or eliminate the number of outside groups having meetings here, that is covered in your last bullet item. Otherwise, classes also benefit from being on the calendar for more than six weeks.

No argument there. 240 hours was a purely arbitrary number.

It used to be 12 days so that people have enough advance notice before a class is held. Is this truly needed? If it is too short, there is a possibility that classes with marginal interest may not make.

That is kind of the way it is now. We have spoken to groups who reserve more than one room simultaneously and it is seldom approved.

Do we really not want the Solidworks or Linux user groups meeting here? How do you fairly choose who can?

I propose a somewhat different restriction: no one DMS member may reserve a classroom for more than two prime time events a month in a prime-time slot.

  1. An event is defined as something other than a class, honorarium or not.
  2. A prime-time slot is defined as a period from 1.5 to 4 hours at or after 6 PM on a week night or any time on a weekend from 8 AM to midnight inclusive.
1 Like
#3

Observation has indicated that the event reviews are more cursory then the honorarium reviews, so that it is ‘easier’ to slip something through. THat is why my rule #1 was to start applying consistent rules, ie., how long the review period is, how long the hold period, etc. ANd most especially have the same group responsible for both.

Our mission is education. Classes should be our primary focus, with other DMS events a close second. Third party events can always find other venues. They abound. Most churches, schools, and colleges will host such meetings. It is not like they go away entirely. That said, I would guess that of the two you mention a siginificant number of participants are DMS members, so they might still qualify under the rules.

Only being able to schedule out to 6 weeks doesn’t harm them much.

#4

Approval for honorarium is currently tougher because DMS funds are involved. Approval for events revolve strictly around “is it a problem?”

#5

For us, space is a more restrictive commodity then money right now. So yes, I believe it is a problem. Since there have been more then a few complaints about finding/scheduling classroom space on Talk I don’t think I am alone in seeing the problem.

Also, it isn’t just events, it is non-honorarium classes as well. If the instructor decides to forgo honorarium entirely, they could sneak a Six Sigma class through (or a ponzi class)… This is why I believe a consistent set of rules and reviewers should be responsible for all.

#6

Re: the 240 hour thing–

Here’s my assumptions. The way it was originally written, they wanted you to get approval before actually putting your event on the calendar. The 10 day thing was, I think, to make sure your event was on the calendar for a full week, thus giving folks a chance to see it. I know when I was using the old calendar, I’d just put my class on the schedule the same day that I asked for honorarium approval, so that my date wouldn’t get sideswiped by lack of attention from the board members.

We might consider that the minimum “on calendar” time is a week. Thus, if we shorten up the wait for objections, we could shorten the overall time.

#7

The honorarium “waiting period” was with an eye to giving members time to “see” a class. The old honorarium system was more generous so we had instructors littering the calendar with junk classes, that no one was interested in, there would be few or no students, AND the instructor was paid.

From a students view, is 7 days enough time to fill a class? High demand classes, absolutely. Other classes, they need time for people to recognize a class is open and available.

The 10 day rule is favorable to students. I would prefer not to change it.

Can we make a list of high demand classes and cut those wait periods down to 7 or even 5 days? I know laser, Fusion 360, welding,a wood shop safety, and 3D basics should be on that list. I am sure there are more. As long as the student demand is high, a shorter waiting period is favorable. As long as the instructor gets the honorarium, that is good too. Have a system to move classes off or onto the “High Demand” class list. Classes do cycle.

Are high demand classes worth more honorarium? It is something to consider. Teaching those classes and relieving unfulfilled demand is certainly excellent for members.

I have an option on the theme. $50 on classes with up to 6 students. $75 for 7+ students.This become a bookkeeping issue. Prove head count. It would encourage people to take and turn in roll too.

Then there is the list of wanted classes or people waiting on a class. I still think this is valuable data. Right now, it is a huge unknown. What classes should be taught more often? (Theoretical question, please do not list the classes you want.) We think we know, we do not have real data.

How do we encourage people to teach the most needed classes?

2 Likes
#8

Its 10 days, not 7. My proposal would be to reduce to 5. This doesn’t prevent people from scheduling out as far as 6 weeks (if the other rule change is accepted). Many folks can’t plan out very far, which is one reason I suspect that many folks are signing up for classes and failing to attend. I also suggest that the minimum of five days is plenty for folks to have the opportunity to find classes. At the very least, events should have the same constraint.

I don’t agree it is favorable, my reasons are above.

1 Like
#9

Honorariums aren’t payments, and we shouldn’t attempt to make them so. Also, further ‘incentivising’ teaching when we are running out of the needed resource, classes, is probably a bad idea.

1 Like
#10

If the classes fill within 48 hrs not sure how does making everyone wait a week benefit the students? The class is full, it isn’t going to get more full.

I think a shorter time for high demand classes an instructor now knows they are available short notice can submit a class for 5 days out. I’m sure classes such as Wood Shop would fill if they were on there only 5 days.

IMO Head count isn’t a good parameter for higher paid classes. 10 people at a 1~1.5 hour class is very different from doing 5/6 people in a 3+ hour Training Required hands On class. They are much more arduous for the instructor, e.g. Wood Shop Basics, Bridgeport/Sherline Mills, Lathes Metal or Wood, PlasmaCam, etc. are all classes that take around 3 or more hours. These are the ones that need more instructors, especially Wood Shop basic - they are where the additional money is needed.

Changing the pricing model may need to be looked at to cure the shortage, but if numbers based it will pay more none of the classes that are size limited to 5 or 6, which are the ones we have the shortages in.
Not sure how to do this.

4 Likes
#11

@wandrson We agree to disagree on the wait time. We had classes that were not filling because they were scheduled so quickly. How does having a shorter lead time on classes that are slow to fill serve our members better? The effect can be to have more smaller classes that clog the calendar. I do not 100% disagree with your suggestions. There are reasons for the 10 day rule.

@Photomancer. I think it might be time to give classes a difficulty rating and pay more for the most difficult classes. We are then encouraging people to teach the harder classes.

Any class with more students is harder. 3 students vs 10 students.

Also, giving a class a “high demand” rating would shorten the required lead time to qualify for honorarium.

Paying more for better attended classes. It is positive reinforcement.

As an organization, DMS is LOUSY at acknowledging excellent people on a day to day basis.

I am not advocating for a specific change, I think it is time to see if we can better serve our members by encouraging people to teach.

We continually TALK about not enough of the right classes. We having lots of people asking for training. One day, as I listened to KERA, we were mentioned as having cool tools AND lousy training.

What are we going to change to shift out of this issue?

1 Like
#12

This is where we seem to have a fundamental different view of the problem. I believe we have plenty of people teaching, hence why we are having a hard time finding classrooms during prime hours.

@artg_dms was just mentioning to me that someone had scheduled the electronics room for a class on computer databases. Marginally related to electronics, but I am guessing it is being scheduled in Electronics because all of the more appropriate classes were full.

2 Likes
#13

Ah, but what we have right now is NOT 10 days visible to students. It’s 7 days. 10 days to schedule, with 3 invisible days, then 7 days on the calendar.

#14

Fewer students allowed usually means a hands-on format vs. a lecture or demonstration that can accommodate more students.

6 Likes
#15

What do you mean by the ‘right’ classes? If your referring to classes we require, that is a problem that we create ourselves. And should be managed at the same time we start managing our unsustaineable growth.

As to lousy training, I would call BS. Our required training is not, and was never intended to provide people all they needed to know to use equipment, but rather to teach them how not to injure or kill themselves.

Specifically I am refering to the areas where it takes years of practice to begin to master the required skills: woodshop, metal shop, and machine shop for example. As someone who created and taught the original training for machine shop, I can assure that nearly all the folks who took my classes seemed to expect some kind of magic transference to occur during the two hour class whereby they would mystically acquire decades of knowledge and experience.

I have found our members rarely are willing to spend their own time and effort to acquire skills, rather preferring to find shortcuts to just get er done. They tend to worry more about some particular project, rather then learning skills that take time. In short, it would be like going to a university to get a degree in mathematics, while insisting you don’t need to learn calculus because you have that app on your phone.

Learning is a two way street, and requires the student to put in as much or more likely more effort then the teacher if they are going to accomplish anything.

3 Likes
#16

The “lousy training” was a quote from a caller into KERA, not me. How are you calling BS on a radio quote? It was an opinion AND it was exactly what was said.

I think we do well with the system we have currently. Can we improve the experience for students AND teachers? Absolutely.

I am not 100% in agreement with your recommendations. I am all for improving the system.

We need to upgrade or replace our class software. It was written for DMS by someone who does not have the time or inclination to keep maintaining and upgrading it. DMS has growing pains, it is no longer acceptable to have a thrown together system without the needed support.

1 Like
#17

As an instructor, I would love for the wait time on honorarium classes to be shortened. There are times I want to get a class in quickly, because I suddenly have the time to teach a class, and it fills a hole where there would otherwise be up to 3 weeks between classes.

5 Likes
#18

How can I reserve the Purple room for a 30 minute presentation on 9/28?
I have a woodworking class but need to go over safety and a few other things. Thought I might piggyback on this message. Any help would be appreciated.
My first class so forgive the intrusion. Jeff

#19

First, wasn’t directed at you. I call BS on the opinion of the caller. And my reasons were outlined above, ie. trying to get a degree in mathematics but refusing to learn calculus because they have an app for that. I have found DMS to be a fountain of knowledge, and its members more then willing to share in classrooms and out; however, learning requires effort (and a lot of it) from the people willing to learn, and in that area I have found our members less willing to exert themselves.

In some cases this was because their interest was cursory, such as when I took the quilting class from @John_Marlow but much of the time it is because they don’t want to actually learn, but rather acquire the knowledge in the same way they acquire new apps for their phone. In other words they expect instant gratification.

#20

@wandrson.

The right classes means no one is waiting for training. We have that issue. Every week someone posts that they are looking for a class.

In no way am I disparaging our training content or instructors. However, we are blind to demand because we do not track requests for classes or have a standby list for classes.

We cycle through scheduled classes based on instructor availability. It is what is so. That makes scheduled classes occur as arbitrary. For new members, that can be frustrating.

You think we, consistently, have the right mix of classes on the calendar? I disagree.

@dryad2b. 10 days submission, 3 days for approval and on the calendar, 7 days before a class is taught. With Walter’s suggestion, that would mean 5 days submission, 3 days for approval and 2 days before a class is taught. That is tight for people to see a class, register and attend. As a trial, sure, let’s try it. I think that is not enough time on the calendar. As a trial, give it 60 days temporarily approval and then talk about whether to make it permanent.

If this is approved temporary, my challenge to @wandrson is setup ALL you classes at 5 days and see if your attendance suffers.