*PROPOSAL: Only people with card access can vote on granting card access*
      *-In addition, there must be at least 6 card holding members voting
on card access proposals. If there are not 6 card holding members at the
HYH, then the proposal is tabled until the next HYH.*
*
*
-Chad "Excellent-proposals" Stearns

I strongly second this. It makes no sense for "untrusted"* members to be
handing out keys.

* Here, "untrusted" only refers to not explicitly trusting someone with
doors.
--
Nate Plamondon
Sent from a tiny on-screen keyboard
On Nov 12, 2012 4:14 AM, "Chad Stearns" <chadstear...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we get a special handshake, and fez hats too?

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nate Plamondon <nplamon...@gmail.com>wrote:

Shh, that's for super-trusted members only Luis, you remember what the
Decapitated Deer said.

I'm neutral on this. It makes sense to prevent members from voting for each
other to have card access, but it's hard enough to get quorum by 7:00
already. If cardholders don't feel strongly enough to already make up the
majority of a HYH vote, do they deserve to deny someone a card? The
majority of active members are cardholders, I believe. It's not an elite
club.
On Nov 12, 2012 11:19 AM, "Luis Montes" <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree with this proposal.

Not only does it smell of elitism. It is easy to overcome.  A group of
non-card holding members just has to vote to reverse this proposal and then
to vote themselves access.  The only way to stop that is to say that only
members with card access are allowed to vote in HYH.  That REALLY smells of
elitism.

Does anyone know of an instance when this was required?  Do we want more
rules just for the sake of having more rules?  What if the current active
members become inactive for a time and there is never enough of a quorum to
give access to new members?

The space is there to be used by paying members.  We should encourage
access for people who want to come in and create things.  New people and
new ideas will keep the space fresh and stimulate more new ideas.  Closing
the doors and limiting access will eventually stifle creativity.

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Will Bradley <bradley.w...@gmail.com>wrote:

Ya I just joined, but at 50 bucks a month, it makes sense to get to know
people for security and trust sake before getting card access, but just
adding the rule even if it seems logical seems unnecessary until it is
necessary. So I would be against this unless there has been a "problem"
with people who have card access doing things so dangerously bad that you
need preventative measures as oppose to just revoking someones card access.

Hopefully that made sense.
Thanks,
Jeremy Davis

I dont think we have a current problem. I remember months ago we had
some controversy about card access although I forgot what sparked.

I think its more sensible for people with card access to grant card access
as opposed to just any member. Its best to be conservative about granting
valuable things like card access. I dont think this rule would have made
any difference for any past card access proposals. Most of them seem be
landslides in favor of granting card access. So, if we have 6 card holding
members voting on card access or 12 members voting on card access, either
way I expect everyone to vote in favor. This is just because almost all the
proposals have gone that way in the past. For all normal future card access
proposals I expect this to make no practical difference.

But maybe some future card access proposal *wont* be normal.. Maybe some
problem might arise in the future where there is some conflict about
granting card access. Whatever that conflict *might* be, I would expect the
judgement of card holding members, to be better than just members in
general. At the moment, its possible for some group to just buy
memberships, and vote themselves card access. A group of strangers that
none of us have met could possibility do this. The absurdity of that
possibility alone, reflects a kind of absurdity in our policy.

-ChadCS