SLMS wiki - "The Rules"

[mstclair87]

I've been using my virtual hacksaw to make some changes to the wiki but it will get blunt unless there is input from others. In particular, see the discussion page about Rules. I'm sure most will think, why bother prioritising such bureaucratic claptrap when we are such a welll-balanced informal and friendly bunch and there are much more interesting things to talk about? But I would argue that that's exactly why we need put in some effort to ensure it stays that way, and while we're in limboland as regards premises, this is as good a time as any to get our hygiene factors sorted.

I was a trustee and company secretary for a charity and company limited by guarantee called Families Need Fathers for about seven years. It had about 3000 members, who were mainly disenfranchised dads using the courts to attempt to overcome their ex's efforts at preventing them having meaningful involvement in their children's lives following divorce or separation - poignant stuff. Many of our members were very angry men. Sometimes that anger turned inwards and FNF was blamed for not achieving the outcomes they sought and the trustees were expected to deal with it. Some of the things being proposed by members would have jeopardised our charitable status. One thing I was involved with was to focus this anger away from the charity and that resulted in the formation of Fathers For Justice, formed largely of FNF members or ex-members. But I digress.

One of our members at FNF was considered a troublemaker by the trustees and we decided to expel him. However he noticed that the Rules mentioned in our Articles of Association hadn't been published and he actually took us to court arguing that we couldn't expel him because we didn't have an officially sanctioned method for doing so. If I remember, his argument was that when we did eventually publish our Rules, they couldn't be applied retrospectively. I feel, as a result of such experiences, that I'm qualified to act as a Black Hat Thinker, looking out for the worst possible scenarios that we might face, but cognisant that my thoughts might be over the top regarding the somewhat different context in which SLMS operates. I just hope we never have to face some of the situations I've faced, which could all have been prevented (with hindsight) if the FNF trustees (myself included) had shown more perspicacity.

Note that the convention on wiki discussion pages is that you sign each comment, so anyone can see who wrote what without having to dredge the history files (which also let you see who did what). To do this, end your entry with four tildes (~~~~). This will cause the wiki to append your name and the time and date to your entry. Please check out the link above and put in your two-penny-worth. It will be worthwhile, I'm sure.

Matthew

[Tom Newsom]

Couldn't agree more that The Rules need to be carefully thought out, and that we need procedures in place ahead of the time at which they're needed.

Not sure the discussion page of the wiki is the best place to discuss it though. Not everyone has a wiki account, and it's got the worst interface.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[toby @ tobyz]

Starter for ten: http://makehackvoid.com/code-of-conduct/

Which is the public-facing version of https://wiki.makehackvoid.com/policy:code_of_conduct

This is picked somewhere between my taste and at random, a search brought up plenty of choices.

[Tom Lynch]

Hey,

We talked about values in the past but I think that liberal nonsense (that I too was a supporter of) is not going to work.

I think very concise, plain english rules are very important.

I also think a grievance process needs to be established, with a rule to 

Given some of the conversations I have had with members and prospective members in the last couple weeks I think a no-tollerance approach to discrimination is important on all protected characteristics is important.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

I personally don't drink so I am probably not very tolerant, however I know people have argued for years that drivers aren't safe even with 1 drink in them and I would be inclined to say no alcohol, drugs (legal/illegal/prescription - that cause drowsiness or affect risk taking and judgement).

We need to convene a meet up about this with interested parties rather than holding a public discussion where nothing will get decided.

Tom

[Dermot Jones]

Good work Matthew!

We definitely need clear rules.

But the idea of values and a strong positive culture is highly compelling to me.

For example we must have rules against discrimination, but if we value inclusion and have a clear culture of welcoming newcomers I believe we're far less likely to need to apply those rules.

Dermot.

[mstclair87]

A lot of people do have wiki accounts and I thought one was always offered as a part of membership. Maybe all those listed aren't still members.

The wiki discussion page is the obvious place to put any rationale about rule changes to rules published on the wiki and in which to reference discussions made elsewhere.

Learning the wiki's idiosyncrasies is not everyone's cup of tea but it's very easy to make and sign a comment. You click Edit, type where you want to type, perhaps with a hyphen at the start to indent your comment, put 4 tildes at the end to sign it, and post the edit.

[mstclair87]

On Friday, 19 September 2014 14:51:19 UTC+1, Tom Lynch wrote:

>We need to convene a meet up about this with interested parties rather than holding a public discussion where nothing will get decided.

I am seeking input as to what the de facto rules are, i.e. what's missing from the wiki. Some matters are quite non-contentious, like no bottled gas. Others will need to be decided, .like whether No Alcohol, means no alcohol inside the makerspace, no alcohol to be consumed there, no entry to anyone who has consumed any, no machinery to be used by anyone who has consumed alcohol but it's ok to drop by on your way back from the pub, and no doubt other variants.

I would tend to go with Tom on this that the level of concentration required safely to use some tools is greater than that required to drive a car and hence the rule should be not to allow their use whilst under the influence of any alcohol and no alcohol to be consumed on the premises.

If I put on the wiki discussion page a summary of the input garnered here and elsewhere, being as concise as I can, perhaps this would help pace any meeting that gets convened. 

Matthew

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Black]

I agree with TomL that we should discuss face to face.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[richard.arm...@gmail.com]

Yep it's a little unclear as to what is being proposed here. 

[Dermot Jones]

What the hell happened in Canberra????

Reading their rules in Toby's link conjures up all sorts of disastrous situations: the talks where the speaker had to be physically removed from the podium, other talks where it was more appropriate to wait until afterwards to challenge behaviour...the general problem they had with discrimination and disparaging remarks flying through the air...about gender, race, physical appearance etc.etc.

My serious points here are that overly officious rules lead to an officious and jumpy culture. I don't think this sort of stuff should be on the front page. Plus, it's well recognised that we react much better when told how to be rather than how not to be: when you mention the thing that's not to be done it is immediately conjured in our minds. E.g. "don't think about an elephant".

Yes, to discussing this face to face, but we'll surely need draft rules to work with? Might be a task for a small subcommittee to take on? I don't expect the Google Group to work well for it for long.

What are we doing here? I'm just putting my views of the type of rules we should have.

I always liked having a beer on open evenings. But alcohol has no place with dangerous tool use. But alcohol and coding?

I'd say members need to take responsibility for their own safety: use tools only when you are in a competent state to do so! And maybe tool use is an area where you need to be proscriptive? Just like it might be appropriate to shout at a child (causing mild trauma) to train them to stay away from a scalding stove?

Dermot.

[mstclair87]

I'm proposing that the Rules page on the wiki be updated after I agreed to Tom Lynch's request to give the wiki a tidy-up. The discussion I had hoped for seems to have turned into a discussion about how to have a discussion.

My view is that there are certain 'hygiene factors', which we need to get right in order to preserve and promote the ethos of SLMS. Rules should be like stabilizers on a ship - and pitched at the right level, largely, in our case, to ensure that members are made aware of behaviour that might affect the smooth running of the makerspace - adversely or otherwise. I think everyone is agreed about this. I'm suggesting that the process for achieving it is that any member can propose a rule change, that other members should have the opportunity to review that proposal, and, if there are no substantive objections, then it should become a rule. I'd like this to be achieved with the minimum of unnecessary formality. Anyone who wants to be involved can use this forum page to give us their thoughts, thereby becoming part of a de facto rules working group. That's the best way I can think of to ensure that nothing important gets left out and that the rules we end up with are the rules we want/need with the maximum buy-in from members. (I reckon most members will be completely uninterested in this, which is fine, but that doesn't reduce the importance of having a good set of working rules.)

Once this discussion gets underway (which I think it now has), then I (or anyone else) can start to put together a set of revised rules on the wiki discussion page (a holding area, if you like). When the trustees approve it, which might be after a meeting or whatever they decide, then the new set of proposed rules can be promoted to be the actual rules on the wiki Rules page (which doesn't have much on it at the moment).

Matthew

[mstclair87]

I like the way the current rules start with the topic of Respect. If everyone respects everyone else then one doesn't need to enumerate the behaviours that constitute disrespect. But I also liked Tom Lynch's list of 'protected characteristics', and to include them in the rules should re-assure people who might have experienced some sort of discrimination because of their race, gender, age, etc.. We don't really need rules for things that are against the law. Whilst we obviously don't want members murdering each other, we clearly don't need a rule that says No Murder, I hope!

In light of Dermot's comments, I think of the ethos of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (which I first encountered when it became law and I became a H&S rep at the factory where I was working at the time) and that is that everyone is responsible for pointing out/reporting hazards to everyone who might be affected by them.

I wouldn't completely dismiss the Canberra rules, which were based on material in the Geek Feminism Wiki.. Rules that encourage more women to join, even if they seem a bit over the top to many of us, wouldn't be a bad thing. I agree that it's a challenge to formulate such rules in an acceptable way - one that doesn't give the impression that we're plagued by the harassment of our members by other members. But wouldn't it be nice if some women joined us at least in part because we were seen as an empowering agency for (geeky) women?

I also think there some matters which are better left out, even if they could qualify for rule making, and I take on board Dermot's point about  "overly officious rules lead[ing] to an officious and jumpy culture". We need to exercise some judgement about whether a rule is going to be effective and whether it is likely to be constantly flouted because it's perceived as stupid. It's no good having a system where everyone tacitly agrees to let some rule be broken and it's left in place solely to look good to insurance companies or in an effort to reduce the liability of the trustees in the event that we are sued.

Matthew

[Dermot Jones]

Looked at the list of protected characteristics.

Oh....I have definitely been guilty of dismissing religious beliefs. Maybe not brutally, So a check list has been useful in this case.

Dermot.

[Tom Lynch]

When would people like to talk about this? We could arrange a meeting that allows us to brainstorm some rules and try to hash something out. 

Sent from my iPad

[mstclair87]

Hence the rules should be couched to ensure respect for the views of atheists and agnostics, taking the protected characteristic given as 'religion or belief' to mean 'religion or belief or disbelief', unless you count belief as including disbelief, but I'd rather not be arguing with a religious fundamentalist about whether the rules allowed members to trash the views of atheists on the basis that their philosophy didn't constitute a belief.

Matthew

[Gordon Endersby]

Sorry havnt got any experience setting this sort of thing up.

I have a couple of comments though.

When you mentioned gas bottles. Surely the rules on storage of hazardous materials is more to do with limitations imposed by the landlord rather than part of the philosophy or aims of the group.
Wouldnt that be seperate.

Also materials and chemicals need good definitions as an explosive gas is what the railways want to keep from there arches.
Due to a number of fairly recent incidents where theyve had to close part of the network to deal with fires.
But do they allow inert gases such as o2 and argon as used in mig welding. And also quantities as even an air duster aerosol contains volatile gases as propellant due to the ban on cfc's.
And volatile liquids such as acetone that ive discovered is used a lot in 3d printing and post cleanup. 

On a personal philosophical note.
Id add "non belief" to  that list Tom linked to as it isnt covered by "belief or religion".
Its an oldie but leave religion and politics at the door.

Gordon

[Gordon Endersby]

Sent my comment before seeing mathews.
I added non belief for that very reason.

Gordon

[Tom Lynch]

FYI oxygen isn't inert, it's one of the most reactive chemicals it's why metal rusts, paper burns and it's why it's mixed with acetylene gas to make oxyacetyelene. 

But official no compressed gases are allowed, that means no gas welding.

Sent from my iPhone

--

[mstclair87]

I think 'non-belief' is a better term in this context than 'disbelief'.

Matthew

[Gordon Endersby]

That's a mistype should have been co2.
I know o2 is not inert.

So no projects that require welding?
Or just storage of compressed gas.?

If some project required something we couldn't store in the arch could we bring it, use it and take it away. For example compressed co2/argon mix for mig welding some racking together for storage or a project that required welding.

Gordon

[mstclair87]

I'm hoping that the railway regulations, which I haven't seen, should cover what and how much of any hazardous materials we are allowed. I doubt we'd want to elaborate on them much further. Our rules just need to reference them and provide a summary of how they affect us.

Matthew

[mstclair87]

Suppose I had a scheme to use the makerspace to make a quadcopter that operated a paint spraycan intended to black out parking cameras. I just use this as an illustration of some nefarious activity for which the makerspace might 'quietly' be used. A rule saying No Nefarious Activities wouldn't deter the nefarious, I think. But rules like:

Respect other members' curiosity about your activities and be prepared to help other members who have a problem

and

If you think a member is engaged in activities that could be harmful to the environment or something illegal then draw this to the attention of the trustees lest you be implicated

might cover it.

[toby @ tobyz]

Good to see debate.

Personally I'm pro the geek feminism code.

I also like the way Canberra has an outward facing values statement, which it then operationalises in it's inward facing materials.

Bit worried about the quad copter example, but from the other side of the argument. I'm pretty passionate that there's a role for art in exploring the grey areas of our social-cultural-legal world, especially technology infused things. I'd hope a makerspace would be open to that.

tbz::spk // mobile mail

[mstclair87]

With the quadcopter example I deliberately tried to pick an activity at or near the point where it would be against the rules in order that we can delineate where our boundary would be. Clearly if someone started making weapons we'd be subject to terrorist legislation that makes you an accessory merely for not reporting it. But there might be other examples of activities that wouldn't necessarily be illegal per se but which we'd nevertheless not want going in in the makerspace. Making a paintspraying quadcopter probably isn't illegal though using if for the purpose I mentioned undoubtedly is. There are other examples, like making a laser pointer to point at aircraft. We might want to take the line that what you make in the makerspace and what you do with what you make in the makerspace are entirely separate, in which case have no need for any rules about what you do.

Matthew

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Lynch]

Hey,

I have spent most of the afternoon thinking about the rules. I think we may need a sort of social contract and a set of rules for the space.

I started putting together a document which represents my thoughts, I would encourage people to add comments to the document and suggest other rules in areas not considered.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QSX-aK-pEIhgIMt6Y3btxybF7YQLJ4qPPPc1h5kosPA/edit?usp=sharing

Tom

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[Lauren Shearer]

As an opinionated person it's interesting to see the genuine interest in getting a set of useful rules in place; Obviously, talking about this prior to people putting in even more effort into a physical space is an excellent idea.

As those few whom I talked the ears off on wednesday will have learned, I have opinions and like to share them; likewise tell me if it's not wanted earlier rather than later.

*Ahem*

There are a couple of excellent things about the Canberra rules beyond their foundation on the Geek Feminism conference rules. Particularly

• Tiered "Short", "Medium" and "Long" versions
• An "Internal Members'" version which gives more specific guidance on;
• How to make a complaint
• Who to report it to
• How they are expected to respond to it

But these are also very limited; they

• Are quite specifically code of conduct 
• Do not cover safety / occupational health
• Provide only some of the ethos and guidance about what activities are reasonable

Which is why there are additional rules which they summarise as;

The rules of MakeHackVoid can be summarised as:

• respect yourself;
• respect others; and
• respect MakeHackVoid and others property.

Which are pretty good, and expand into what this should actually mean

May I suggest a way you could move forward in actually deciding rules?

1. A member suggests a rule or adaption to the list or privately with other members

2. After at least two members are happy in private or public, the suggestion may be submitted to the trustees for them to veto, suggest amendments or approve for vote

3. The trustees either decide internally to make a determination, or put it to a (special) general meeting for members to vote on

----> This usually requires prior notice of the resolution and such, so it would be great to set a date for submissions and then a date for the SGM, and do a batch at the time.

Ultimately remembering that;

5. 4. The objects of the association are:

   4.1 to promote and encourage creative, technical and scientific skills through social collaboration and education; and

   4.2 to provide and maintain shared community workspace and equipment in Greater London. 

And;

Subject to the Articles and to the applicable provisions for the time being of the Companies Acts, the directors are responsible for the management of the Company's business, for which purpose they may exercise all the powers of the Company. 

So essentially the trustees can actually just decide what the rules ae and vote internally. But perhaps more usefully;

15. 1.18  Directors may delegate
    1.19  Subject to the Articles, the directors may delegate any of the powers which are conferred on them under the
    Articles:
    1.19.1  to such person or committee;
    1.19.2  by such means (including by a power of attorney);
    1.19.3  to such an extent;
    1.19.4  in relation to such matters or territories; and
    1.19.5  on such terms and conditions;
    as they think fit.
    1.20  If the directors so specify, any such delegation may authorise further delegation of the directors' powers by any
    person to whom they are delegated.
    1.21  The directors may revoke any delegation in whole or part, or alter its terms and conditions. 

So ending the waffling and making an actual suggestion:

1. Trustees appoint a smalls committee to take rule change suggestions by a deadine and then give to trustees
• The may form a group of "package" to vote on rather than individual rules 
  
2. Trustees make notice of a (Special) General Meeting with appropriate notice of the suggested rule changes
3. Everyone gets their say on the floor of a meeting that meets Quorum (and as per the articles, may participate from anywhere as long as their orinions and thoughts can be communicated)

Given you don't have cents here, does this count as sharing my own 2 pence?

Cheers,

(Aussie) Lauren

P.S. As to the quad that sprays paint, you might consider a "fair use policy" that includes primary intent

• Fair to make an otherwise legal object
• E.G. Most firearms are illegal in any sense. Have a look at the victorian police "prohibited weapons" if you want a wider definition. TL;DR it's everything
• Fair if this example's prime use will be to demonstrate that it could spray out security cameras / do grafitti
• NOT fair to plan to actually break a law (i.e. spray cameras) or implicate the space and it's other occupants in your crime
  
• If there is sufficient concern, a written undertaking and enforcement procedure might need to be written up i.e. swear on you're grandfather's lost rivet gun that you won't break laws, and satisfy the trustees / their appointed representatives that this is indeed so on an appropriate time basis

On Saturday, 20 September 2014 16:25:56 UTC+1, toby @ tobyz wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[richard.arm...@gmail.com]

I think talking about it is a good idea. I agree with dermot about lists of rules and how they might effect the atmosphere of an organisation. Most of the rules on that list are common sense generally come part and parcel in not being a bit of an arse. I think a group can be self policing in that without the need to refer to a list of what is right and wrong - emphasise the positive qualities we want to emulate rather than the negative that we don't. I also think it's nice to have a beer in the space, though not if using the tools. 

[toby @ tobyz]

> not being a bit of an arse

There's a few posts with this theme, I think there are two different things that are worth separating out.

'Don't be an arse' is different to 'bollocks, you are an arse, now what?'.

Faith in the good doesn't stop a bad actor being a wrecking ball. Similarly procedures for handling unpleasantness doesn't engender a positive culture.

Two different things, quite possibly two different approaches.

[mstclair87]

If we're going to have rules about alcohol and coding (which I'm not for a moment suggesting) then better make sure people don't misconstrue what we mean by 'coding'.

Matthew

On Saturday, 20 September 2014 11:23:01 UTC+1, Dermot Jones wrote:

...

 

I always liked having a beer on open evenings. But alcohol has no place with dangerous tool use. But alcohol and coding?

...

 

Dermot.

[Tom Lynch]

Hey,

My opinion is: 

1. If you are using tools, no amount of alcohol is permitted, even from the night before.

2. You can drink in the space but you can't be drunk in the space.

Thanks

Tom

[Dermot Jones]

Tommel,

I don't see the relevance or practicality of having a rule about what people have drunk the night before.

Members need to be honest with themselves as to whether they're in a fit condition to use dangerous tools. That  includes deferring tool use when hungover, too tired....or even frustrated by a project that isn't going well.  So you would need to be: alert, confident in the job you are approaching, aware that failures are not uncommon. And have enough time to do the job properly.

Dermot.

[Tom Lynch]

Hey,

I simply mean not being under the influence of alcohol from a heavy night before, not hung over.

i.e. No alcohol in your system?

I don't mean no alcohol if you've drunk the day before, I mean if you are still affected the day after, (pretty extreme).

It's not really important, other than to say I think no alcohol in your system is what I was trying to get at, not the drink drive level which is disputed as nonsense anyway.

Tom

[mstclair87]

Can we say 'potentially hazardous tools and equipment' instead of 'tools'? If it's ever unclear to common sense whether an item is hazardous then we can be explicit about it. It might be better to say this rule applies in the 'dirty' area.

Matthew

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Sarah Barber]

I think that Dermot is spot on with the idea of promoting a positive culture. I think that we need some general rules about playing nice and some more specific rules about working with dangerous machinery but some of the suggestions I've heard either seem too far for me or I worry they would be interpreted in a way that would go too far. For example, I sometimes like to have a beer while socialising in the space and have had some great conversations with people in the space about politics and religion.

It sounds like people are worrying about what happens if someone joins who is causing a lot of problems for the group and they need to be asked to leave. Perhaps one of the longer standing trustees could clarify if that would be a decision for the trustees to make, and would they have a legal problem asking someone to leave the group if the things they had done to offend people weren't explicitly prohibited by a list of rules?

Sarah

[Lauren Shearer]

As odious as the task may seem, it be hooves the trustees to be familiar with

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/servicescode.pdf

There are certain differences between protected speech and harassment that are informative. 

Don't be afraid of people joining who will act unacceptably; just have a clear, open and decisive process that allows members to adjust their behaviors but retain members who are willing to aquiesce to the culture. 

Alcohol use is acceptable in social context and is likely to help with the membership if used in moderation. Perhaps include it in the risk assessment for tools, rather than blanket bans or gratuities?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/southlondonmakerspace/eBdgNs8oS7g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Yours Sincerely,
Lauren Shearer, MBBS

Paediatric Cardiology Advanced Training Registrar (RACP)
Paediatric Pulmonary Hypertension Fellow, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
Clinical Tutor, Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University
Phone: 0417 200 101
Email: L.Sh...@Vicpaeds.com

[mstclair87]

We could have a rule that said the trustees can ask someone to leave at their discretion. But without such a rule then the trustees couldn't ask someone to leave for no apparent reason without risking legal action, I think.

[Dermot Jones]

Lauren, thanks I'll read that document tonight.

I have a few views on the matter of ruled etc. which I'll post later.

And Sarah, I agree. We shouldn't really have banned subjects of discussion. And political correctness and all its horrors only underlines this for me.

It's like the health and safety nightmare where people cite it out of fear, ignorance and laziness...and so many possibilities are cut off.

My point was that sometimes when I'm with techie type people there's an assumption that 'we' don't believe in religion. I was just reminded of that folly when I read the guidelines. I'll happily discuss anything with anyone, and if I offend I'd rather have it explained to me so I can reflect. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person if I hold a faulty/unpopular view. But it might make me a better one if I'm open to changing that view.

Dermot.

[Dermot Jones]

A way forward on the rules?

Firstly Matthew is correct: we must have a watertight way of dealing with problems that averts the legal nightmare he's encountered before.

And it raises a few things I propose we need to do at this stage:

We need to define what we are, or aim to be. And what we are not, and have no aim to be. There has been some work done on this before.

We need to set out our values.

We can also set down a mission statement.

And we need a bunch of rules. For the reasons Matthew laid out in the very first post. But perhaps not very many rules. As I've said before, an opening and welcoming culture is our most valuable natural resource, and will influence the way people behave more than a list of do's and don'ts. It's what people experience on their first visit.

Then we need to devise some scenarios to test all of the above and see how they hold up. As Matthew called it: 'black hat thinking'.

I do believe that much of what goes on in the space will be covered by our aims/values/mission, and that most of the rules will easily follow from them.

Yes, I know the big corporations have ruined the idea of mission statements and values, e.g. Coca-Cola wants to 'refresh the world', and somewhere far down the list is 'profit'....But we are free right now to say what we want to SLMS to be. But the difference is: we can be honest.

So if we say we value safety, then we mean it. And do it.

So we can start out with what we are from day one, what we aspire to.

This is a good opportunity for a bit of envisioning.

And to avoid confusion: I'm all for simplicity. We we can define values and mission without getting carried away like Coca-Cola. Some examples, not necessarily suggestions:

What we are:

“SLMS is social community workshop: a club for people who want to make things. There's an emphasis on the social side and the space is planned, equipped, maintained and run by it's members”

What we value: sharing, safety, inclusiveness, creativity...(just some examples!)

Our mission: let's get together and make stuff....

Regarding sociability and sharing

Yes, we encourage sharing and being sociable. But it is not compulsory! Sometimes you have a project that you just want to concentrate on, and have limited time. But maybe take a break and have a cup of tea and a chat? Also, be aware that sometimes people don't have the time to help you out. But: “when you can, if you can, help someone out” 

The case for not setting everything in stone.

As we don't know who will join the Space in the future, and it's been a given from the start that the Makerspace will grow to the shape of it's membership in terms of facilities and activities, then we need to leave it constantly open to change.

A point about rules in general

A drawback of rules can be that some people either see them as something to flout, or something to wield. It's not as easy to do that with values...though someone will probably accept the challenge.

Problems I've observed in groups

Two things that I am aware of as potential problems with any groups: formation of cliques, and formation of an 'old guard' who look down on newbies. Visible elitism, is something I find off-putting.

An open and welcoming culture might in itself avoid both of those typical pitfalls. And naming them in advance certainly helps.

Inclusiveness

So first and foremost we must not put up barriers to membership, and the barriers we aren't aware of are the issue! So as many different perspectives on this as possible would be useful. I know what puts me off/attracts me. What do people with different backgrounds feel?

Also, talking about things at their simplest level: if people from different backgrounds don't come it should be not be because of any barriers we put up: it should be that they're just not interested! For clarity: people who are interested in making should feel comfortable joining! Makerspaces are still quite niche at the moment, but I expect that will change, and that we'll be a part of that by our presence. That's not social engineering, it's just inevitable! I am also interested in 'reaching out' as the expression is, but I don't know if that should be part of SLMS's mission?

Any thoughts?

Dermot.

[mstclair87]

One thought, Dermot:

- Might it be worth tying or mission into the larger context of makers worldwide, i.e. that we are part of a popular movement that is enabling and empowering people to do things for themselves?

Matthew

[Dermot Jones]

Matthew, that is very much my personal belief!

Dermot.

[mstclair87]

For what it's worth, I've updated the wiki rules talk page with what I hope is an adequate brief summary of our discussions. I would add, in light of the 'nightmare' scenario that I saw in the past, that the problem arose, not because publishing a set of rules hadn't been on the to-do list; it had; it just hadn't been done.

Matthew

[Dermot Jones]

Matthew,

I hope you'll keep pushing this.

It could too easily get pushed aside with all the imminent construction and planning.

Dermot.

[mstclair87]

This is just a start, but see http://wiki.southlondonmakerspace.org/Talk:Rules#Proposed_Rules

Queries: See the stuff I've put in italics on the wiki.

Matthew

[Tom Lynch]

Further to this:

• Members shall not use any potentially hazardous tools or equipment while under the influence of alcohol or of any substance that causes drowsiness or reduced concentration.Matthew Stannard (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add about reduced spacial awareness or coordination.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[Lauren Shearer]

I think this is an important rule to get right

On Monday, October 20, 2014, Tom Lynch <m...@unknowndomain.co.uk> wrote:

Further to this:

• Members shall not use any potentially hazardous tools or equipment while under the influence of alcohol or of any substance that causes drowsiness or reduced concentration.Matthew Stannard (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add about reduced spacial awareness or coordination.

Please be very careful here. 

You just let all the scriptkiddies with ADHD have free range UNTIL they start medications, the heroin addict use between shots but never again on methodone, all the major depressives, schizophrenics and bipolar people who are well controlled on their sedating medications, but not when they become non-compliant and acutely manic or suicidal.

All the well-controlled epileptics who've not had a siezure in ten years. No potentially hazardous machinery for you

 

On 18 Oct 2014, at 21:16, mstclair87 <mstcl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is just a start, but see http://wiki.southlondonmakerspace.org/Talk:Rules#Proposed_Rules

Queries: See the stuff I've put in italics on the wiki.

Matthew

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/southlondonmakerspace/eBdgNs8oS7g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[toby @ tobyz]

Could we have a group discussion + editing session at the Pub?

Toby

[mstclair87]

See http://wiki.southlondonmakerspace.org/Talk:Rules#Use_of_Equipment.2C_Tools_and_Materials_in_the_Makerspace

Maybe what I've written so far could be used as the basis of our discussion. 

Matthew 

[toby @ tobyz]

That's exactly what I meant. I think what you're doing is great.

tbz::spk // mobile mail

--

[mstclair87]

I take the rules as 'hygiene factors'; they're not really the place to promote a positive culture per se, but obviously they shouldn't inhibit it. I set the tone, I think, by indicating that it is important to have policies and rules in place to protect ourselves against things that might lead to trouble. I think the idea should be that, upon reading each rule, your feeling is that it is right and that compliance with it will help to preserve that positive culture.

Matthew

On Monday, 22 September 2014 20:57:27 UTC+1, Sarah Barber wrote:

[Tom Lynch]

I disagree Sarah. I am not saying no drinking I am saying no alcohol if you are using a machine. I am saying no drugs at all. I am saying don't be drunk at the space. That's different from a couple beers. And a chat. 

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[laurent muchacho]

Unfortunately rules are kind of compulsory as no one, as the same view point, as someone else and sometime you just need to be told how far you can go especially when you are kid like me.

 

Tom is right when he says alcohol and use of machinery should be forbidden  and Sarah is right when she says a beer while having a chat in the space is ok. But if you have a beer don't get back on the band saw that is just common sense and even so we all break our common sense value once in a while most time it's ok but sometime shit happen. This is why rules have been put in place

To borrow Spoke quote:

I (We) need everyone to continue performing admirably

Because what you do in the space do not only affect yourself but the group if one screw up bad we'll lose the space.

Just my point of view really! I'll trust the trustees will make the right call and will inform us of the decision anyone unhappy well shit happen. 

 

--
Laurent Muchacho
~

[Dermot Jones]

The issues as I see them with tool use are:

Risk of harm to others,

Risk of harm to self,

Risk of harm to space,

Risk of harm to tool.

I feel everyone is personally responsible for honestly appraising their own 'fitness' at the particular time they need to operate a tool. But this must be made very clear.

People on medications need to take proper advice about how this might affect their competency.

Examples I gave earlier such as being over-tired, rushing, angry or incredibly frustrated at the 'stupid-bloody-pissing-time-wasting-project' can be just as dangerous as alcohol/drugs.

As we don't have supervisors then we all need to be aware of each other too. And we may need to set out a framework of how this would work so that members feel comfortable in intervening, and avoids 'policing'. Which leads me back to a us creating from the start a culture of good working practice. 

And, for clarity: alcohol and power tool do not go together at all in my opinion.

Dermot.

[Lauren Shearer]

Didn't mean to send just then. Cont'd

Oh, and the difficulty with privacy and trust you've just triggered

Anyway, as suggestions;

1) put the onus on the member

2) make the equipment specific (equipment assessed as having moderate or higher risk of harm to user or equipment in normal use, and equipment at risk of severe harm rarely or if misused as listed on the wiki)

3) List the symptoms (including but not limited to intoxication, impaired concentration, coordination, attention, cognition, perception, impulsivity, or higher reasoning)

4) note the severity (that, in the observation of the member, a reasonable person, or another member of the space, causes the member or equipment to be at significantly and unacceptably increased risk of harm)

5) in the case of chronic impairment if the member is able to pass the training as outlined on the wiki while under a certain level of effect could be exempt for that level of effect. 

That is, if they passed while on drugs while affected on drugs and nonetheless demonstrated the skill, coordination, concentration etc to the level seeped nessecary (without telling the examiner) they should be able to use said equipment unless acutely affected beyond that level

Or, alternatively, make it about skill/impairment, not about drugs and alcohol. Some people need them to survive*

* in fairness the only people who need alcohol to survive are poisoned by methanol - most of the rest are victims of circumstance.  

[Gordon Endersby]

As someone with a condition that often leaves them severely compromised
ME/CFS. I simply dont do anything outside of my abilities when effected.
This includes driving, physical activity or mental activity.
However i do need a strong opiate based drug on a daily basis just to get out of the house. I take the minimum necessary and am quite capable when ive taken it.
But it does say on the packet dont operate heavy machinery.

These drugs effect different people to different levels.
They dont make me drowsy or nauseous as some find.
However sometimes i can seem a bit distracted as my condition can effect my memory, speech and balance when Ive overdone it and tire.
This has nothing to do with my medication. In fact the medication helps.

There are many people in the same boat with varied conditions.
So i think any section about medication or medical condition should be based on the individuals abilities and how they manage there condition rather than the drugs or disability.

Gordon

[Tom Newsom]

I concur with Gordon and Lauren on this issue

--

[Lauren Shearer]

Thank-you, Gordon

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/southlondonmakerspace/eBdgNs8oS7g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[mstclair87]

The way I've handled this in the draft rules I've written is as follows:

Members shall declare if they suffer from any condition that means they need help or special regard in the safe use of any makerspace resource.

I'd expect a diabetic to declare likewise, as there is a risk of passing out from hypoglycemia which can easily be mistaken for drunkenness (or vice versa). Maybe members should be asked when they join whether they have a condition that could cause imparment of their faculties.

Matthew

[mstclair87]

The way I've handled the 'looking out' aspect in the draft rules on the wiki is as follows:

Members undertake generally to be aware of the nature of the activities of other members in the makerspace and to make other members, including at least one trustee, aware of any potential health or safety issue that they encounter.

Matthew

[Lauren Shearer]

On Monday, October 20, 2014, mstclair87 <mstcl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The way I've handled this in the draft rules I've written is as follows:

Members shall declare if they suffer from any condition that means they need help or special regard in the safe use of any makerspace resource.

No. Just no. 

 

I'd expect a diabetic to declare likewise, as there is a risk of passing out from hypoglycemia which can easily be mistaken for drunkenness (or vice versa). 

No.

 

Maybe members should be asked when they join whether they have a condition that could cause imparment of their faculties.

Matthew

  No. 

I think that you unknowingly crossed a line there. Rather than putting the onus on the member, these suggestions

1) force them to disclose private health details

2) ask them to do so to a complete stranger, who

3) may/probably have absolutely no medical qualifications at all and

4) must then judge your capacity on their knowledge

5) record that knowledge and - presumably from your scenario - disseminate it with all the other members of the space so they can act on the presumed hypoglycemia Tom is having - because he drank alcohol. 

Sorry for coming out harshly, but this is a bad idea. I still suggest

1) put onus on the member to ensure they are "fit to fly"

2) give power to members to question that fitness

3) give recourse to those who feel they are capable but may be perceived otherwise a way to show their fitness without discrimination

On Monday, 20 October 2014 14:13:10 UTC+1, Gordon Endersby wrote:

As someone with a condition that often leaves them severely compromised
ME/CFS. I simply dont do anything outside of my abilities when effected.
This includes driving, physical activity or mental activity.
However i do need a strong opiate based drug on a daily basis just to get out of the house. I take the minimum necessary and am quite capable when ive taken it.
But it does say on the packet dont operate heavy machinery.

These drugs effect different people to different levels.
They dont make me drowsy or nauseous as some find.
However sometimes i can seem a bit distracted as my condition can effect my memory, speech and balance when Ive overdone it and tire.
This has nothing to do with my medication. In fact the medication helps.

There are many people in the same boat with varied conditions.
So i think any section about medication or medical condition should be based on the individuals abilities and how they manage there condition rather than the drugs or disability.

Gordon

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/southlondonmakerspace/eBdgNs8oS7g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Yours Sincerely,

[Matthew Copperwaite]

I have to agree with Lauren here on personal information collection for a couple more reasons:

1. We (SLM) have to collect and safely protect this information.

2. The information is not strictly necessary for a member to provide, if all they want to do is some painting it's unnecessary to collect that information.

3. I feel a potential member would feel uncomfortable if they were asked to provide this personal information. This is ultimately about using tools, not scuba diving or flying a plane.

4. They may provide inaccurate or false information, we have no means to dispute their claims, no means of making sure it's up to date, making the whole thing redundant.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[Dermot Jones]

I agree with Lauren: a lot of that stuff is simply none of our business.

So a different iteration of what I said earlier...

What's important as far as I'm concerned:

Personal and Communal responsibility. 

Those who feel they're treated unfairly by 'communal responsibility' misjudging them can be covered by an umbrella 'dispute resolution/open to discussion' process rather than its own system. 

I can also imagine the potentially awkward situation of a severely physically disabled member using tools, and how this might be handled? At first this sounds complicated, but when you break it down into what physical capabilities you need for each machine it's often not that complicated: to use a circular saw for example you need to be able to control the saw with both hands and move it a distance along the work-piece, plus you need enough vision to do this. But there also might be situations where a member can demonstrate competency with abilities that fall outside our original health and safety assessment. That is an argument for flexibility and openness. 

Personally I would avoid going into too much detail in the Rules: safe use of the tools, for example, is detailed in the instructions for each tool and will be explained at induction time.

And, as I originally said, the rules need to grow from the values, aims and ethos: if those are strong and clear we will hardly need to refer to the rules, essential as they are.

Dermot.

 

[mstclair87]

My daughter is a Type 1 diabetic. She 'declares' that by wearing a tag. If she passes out then it's clearly in her interests that whoever is dealing with her is aware of her condition - lest they mistake her hypo for drunkenness or vice versa - and getting that wrong could lead to life-threatening mistreatment.

I'm not saying that people should be forced to disclose personal medical details, just that if they do suffer from a condition that could make them unsafe doing what they intend to do then shouldn't the other members be aware of that fact in case a situation arises where that information would be useful or perhaps, more to the point, where lack of awareness of that fact could be fatal? There might also be a question of SLMS's legal liability if someone did suffer from a condition that made them unsafe, did cause an accident, and then claimed that we'd never asked them about their condition.I can imagine a lawyer claiming we were being negligent by allowing such a member to join.  We just need to ask people, 'do you suffer from any condition that could affect what you intend to do in the makerspace in an unsafe way?' If the answer is no, fine. If the answer is yes, then we either deny them membership or we take some steps to allow them to be members with whatever help they require to ensure they don't act unsafely. I find the latter approach more positive.

The way I have expressed the draft rule is that the existence of such a condition should be disclosed only to a trustee, whom I'm assuming would take a responsible stance about whether to admit the person as a member and what extra precautions might be necessary. The trustees would rbe responsible for obtaining further advice if necessary. What's wrong with telling someone 'you can be a member but other members have got to know about your condition; otherwise you can't be a member because we think that would be too dangerous'? I'd have thought any reasonable person suffering from such a condition would be only too pleased to know that in the event of them collapsing or behaving strangely or whatever that other members would have been informed about what to do. I know I would.

Matthew

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Lynch]

Hey,

Can I ask that we stop this conversation here and instead I propose we make time to discuss this with interested parties and put forth a proposal to the group rather than endless debating here.

Matt could you host a meeting either at mine, yours, or the space for people to signup to come along and discuss one weekend these matters.

Thanks

Tom

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[Lauren Shearer]

Matthew,

A considered view, and thank-you too for sharing your personal considerations. 

Tom, and others;

I obviously have many opinions and acknowledge a tendency to be loud. I hope I've not been rude. Face2Face sounds nice so long as the "can always interrupt Lauren" rule is respected and other opinions (than mine) feel safe/confident to be voiced. 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[toby @ tobyz]

Two points as this transfers to a face-to-face setup.

i. Online and face-to-face are most effective when the one facilitates each other. I think between the structured work on the wiki and the discussion here, we’re in a great place to have a productive meeting where a sensible agenda can lead, and digressions be policed.

ii. We don’t have to get the rules right first time. That’s impossible. We do have to institute clear, simple and sensible rules for changing the rules and dealing with the unexpected. That’s necessary if SLMS is going to have any kind of life-span. <insert evolutionary metaphor here>. This is in part what Dermot is saying, from a different perspective.

On ii, something that’s not-obvious is the amount of membership+enthusiasm kill any kind of dispute can have. I was chairman of an arts org that found itself in a legal dispute, both parties thought they were in the right, and long story short any positivity our members had, well any positivity people had left found other outlets - they either kinda retired from the whole scene or moved on.

I spoke to somebody who was part of the Canberra makerspace the other week, and they paint a similar picture where a chunk of the early membership left the project around their first dispute – which wasn’t a deliberately bad actor, just a member who was disruptive without necessarily realising it (possibly not being capable of realising it). I’m in danger of playing chinese whispers publicly on the internet with that, but I think it might register a little closer than my arts-org experience.

Toby

[Tom Newsom]

LIke the Bystander Effect, simply being aware of the possibility of such ruptures makes us more resilient to them. I see no signs of any bad vibes so far, but try to be vigilant and aware.

[mstclair87]

Am happy to host a meeting at my place for anyone who's interested in getting the rules right, and could provide supper if I know how many people to expect. Before I set this up, however, can you review my list of headings to see if there's anything obvious that I've missed, i.e. are there things we need to have rules about that aren't covered by these headings? The headings I have so far (from the wiki page) are:

• Membership
• Use of the Makerspace, including Equipment, Tools and Materials
• Housekeeping
• Security
• Data Protection
• Wi-Fi
• Banned Substances

Matthew

[mstclair87]

I'm generally against too many procedures. Rules for changing the rules seems like overkill. Ideally we do want to get the rules right first time and then never have to spend time re-writing them. The trustees (aka directors) have to abide by company law pertaining to directors and can be held liable if certain things go wrong. One of the purposes of having rules is to minimise the chances of things going wrong. It may be, for instance, that we need a sign on the wall to say that SLMS is not liable for loss of personal property. Without such a sign, someone might legitimately demand compensation for something he lost in the makerspace. (That's the only reason they have such signs.)

In order for the rules to become official, the trustees just need to minute at a board meeting that they are official. If they want to change them then they minute that at their next meeting, which can be at any time. Amazingly, the word 'meeting' appears 195 times in SLMS's Articles Of Association, but I think the relevant bit is at 1.27, which starts: "The general rule about decision-making by directors is that any decision of the directors must be taken as a majority decision at a meeting..."

Hope this helps.

Matthew

On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 08:25:07 UTC+1, toby @ tobyz wrote:

Two points as this transfers to a face-to-face setup.

i. Online and face-to-face are most effective when the one facilitates each other. I think between the structured work on the wiki and the discussion here, we’re in a great place to have a productive meeting where a sensible agenda can lead, and digressions be policed.

ii. We don’t have to get the rules right first time. That’s impossible. We do have to institute clear, simple and sensible rules for changing the rules and dealing with the unexpected. That’s necessary if SLMS is going to have any kind of life-span. <insert evolutionary metaphor here>. This is in part what Dermot is saying, from a different perspective.

.../snip

[toby @ tobyz]

On 21 Oct 2014, at 14:34, mstclair87 <mstcl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm generally against too many procedures. Rules for changing the rules seems like overkill.

Perhaps the difference in approach is that I see the latter enabling the former. You don’t have to prescribe everything preventatively, you can react as needed.

Anyway, all fodder for a meeting, and supper sounds great (though pub / picnic in the space also)

[mstclair87]

My mother was in Sainsbury's a few years ago. A freezer had leaked a pool of water onto the floor, but no one had put out a warning sign. She slipped and jnjured herself quite badly. She has claimed the compensation that is her due and that's just because they didn't put out a sign. Sainsbury's is not generally considered a dangerous place. We would be in exactly the same position if someone stumbled on an uneven floor in the makerspace and there was no warning. Hence I've included the draft rule: "Materials shall generally not be placed or stored in such a manner as to present a tripping or other hazard. In the event that a hazard is unavoidable, members shall place suitable notices to warn people of it". It's a very obvious thing: if you notice a hazard, make sure everyone's aware of it, as I'm sure most members would naturally do. However, without that rule, in the event of someone injuring themself and getting the right lawyer, we'd be up shit creek! With the rule in place, if someone ignored it, at least the trustees could argue they'd done their bit. We should actually have a sign up there now, saying, "Warning, uneven floor". It might sound daft, but it's for our own legal protection and putting up such a sign is not that onerous an undertaking.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Yours Sincerely,
Lauren Shearer, MBBS

Paediatric Cardiology Advanced Training Registrar (RACP)
Paediatric Pulmonary Hypertension Fellow, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
Clinical Tutor, Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University
Phone: 0417 200 101
Email: L.Sh...@Vicpaeds.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South London Makerspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmakerspace+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Lynch]

Yes but if someone attempted to sue us we'd not be able to afford the legal costs to defend ourselves whether we are right or wrong anyway.

I think these are safety practices not rules and I'll reiterate this thread is done please can you start a new one asking people if they wish to attend such an evening. In the interest of getting work done I could see if we can use a meeting room at LCC as a social meal might be a bit informal.

Tom

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to southlondonmaker...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Lynch]

This is the end of the conversation. We will announce a meeting for interested parties.