Input needed: card reactivation guidelines

[Brett Neese]

Recently the board has been faced with a few situations where members who held cards cancelled their membership, have since returned, and are asking us to reactivate their cards.

The trouble is that while the bylaws do explicitly state that we are obligated to deactivate cards when someone cancels their membership or changes to a lower membership tier, they are silent on what to do when someone cancels and later returns. 

My understanding is that in these situations past boards have reactivated cards and if the community feels this is the right approach we are more than happy to oblige, but there are some solid arguments to be made against this too, and we don’t want to take any actions either way without community input. 

So: we’re asking the community - what should we do in these situations?

Note: this ask should not be construed towards a particular individual case, we are looking for general guidelines we can apply universally.

Brett

HSL Secretary 

[Kirk]

set a grace period - beyond a certain period of absence, the process has to be restarted, otherwise automatic reactivation
take into account reason - if there is financial hardship or some understandable and verifiable reason, then a longer grace period

[David Lang]

My view is that there are a couple different categories

1. payment was missed

They should be able tod pay the past due membership, and we treat it as if there
was no gap (mistakes happen, give a little time after they are notified that
payment was missed for them to catch up

2. they actively quit

If they announced that they quit, the bylaws state that they are to return their
card, etc. At that point there is no misunderstanding, they are no longer a
member and can therefor no longer be a cardholder.

If they decide to come back (a month later of 10 years later), they should have
to go through the approval process again. It's a few months of being an active
member, getting a sponsor, and getting cardholder approval. While this is a bit
of a delay, if they've been gone a long while, the cardholders voting on them
are likely to be different, so they need time to get to know you before they can
approve you.

This especially includes people who make a Dramatic Exit and come back, they
have damaged the trust of some people, so it seems correct to have them go
through the same wait as a new person applying.

David Lang
(not a cardholder)

On Fri, 19 Jun 2026, Brett Neese wrote:

> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:16:44 -0700
> From: Brett Neese <br...@neese.rocks>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [HSL] Input needed: card reactivation guidelines

>
> Recently the board has been faced with a few situations where members who
> held cards cancelled their membership, have since returned, and are asking
> us to reactivate their cards.
>
> The trouble is that while the bylaws do explicitly state that we are
> obligated to deactivate cards when someone cancels their membership or
> changes to a lower membership tier, they are silent on what to do when
> someone cancels and later returns.
>
> My understanding is that in these situations past boards have reactivated
> cards and if the community feels this is the right approach we are more
> than happy to oblige, but there are some solid arguments to be made against
> this too, and we don’t want to take any actions either way without
> community input.
>

> So: we’re asking the community -* what should we do in these situations?*

[Heather Jackson]

I am a cardholder who moved away for a job with intent to return after a few years.

> On Jun 20, 2026, at 3:37 AM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>
> My view is that there are a couple different categories

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/n8q94417-259s-1rr9-229n-87o8o46q83qp%40ynat.uz.

[Luis Montes]

Damaging trust is entirely subjective.

We have a process for members to collectively ban someone from the lab or remove their card access. It's just an HYH proposal.

Life happens, for whatever reason some people might spend a few years away from the lab and stop payment. Sometimes people go through a financial hardship and can't pay. We don't need to pry into any of that.

If we already voted as a group to trust this person, I don't see why we need to go through it again.

I think we should reactivate their card once payment resumes.

[Mike Wolfson]

I agree with Luis on this. I think if a person was trustworthy enough to be a card member (and was responsible when they had the card) they should be re-instated.

Full transparency, I did quit, and hope to return someday.  If I can get my cardholder access (which is extremely important to me being a member) it will incentivize me to return.

One more vote to re-instate previous cardholders.

[David Lang]

Mike Wolfson wrote:

> I agree with Luis on this. I think if a person was trustworthy enough to be
> a card member (and was responsible when they had the card) they should be
> re-instated.

it's that "and was responsible" section that has me saying they need a vote. if
they have been gone long enough, do we even have members who remember them? If
someone storms away in a huff (especially if they badmouth the lab on their way
out), that could raise questions around "and was responsible" which is what
makes me think that they should at least face a vote

the only way in the current bylaws to have a vote has no allowence for changing
the time to the vote based on it being someone who is back after an absense. I
think we need to clarify what should happen in the bylaws in any case

David Lang

[Kirk]

Cardholders serve a vital function as hosts - opening and closing the lab for all members and the public, and keeping a watch over the lab in-between.  The card is not just a status symbol.
The card is awarded by members based on the character of the recipient, and character does not change over short (or even long) periods.  If the process were to be restarted again, the end result is likely membership would reaffirm card access, and the whole process would be a waste of time.
I personally do not want to be bothered with wasting my time with stupid messages and voting when the character of the individual is clear.
Decisions should be made by the smallest group of people, preferably one. As Luis mentioned, there is already a process to remove card access if a bad decision was made in granting reinstatement.  It is a major waste of time to have the entire membership involved for every reinstatement instead of the entire membership involved in a few card removals.
If a mistake is made in reinstatement, it is not the end of the world.
At the end of the day, whatever rule is decided on, execution of the rule depends on trusting people.  I prefer a HeatSync that trusts people than one that trusts complicated rules.  If the current system has been working so far, what is the reason for changing it for something else?

[Rick Blake]

Kirk wrote, in part;

"Decisions should be made by the smallest group of people, preferably one."

This is the antithesis of how I hope the Lab is governed. The sense of the community is important to me, and it is not articulated by "the smallest group of people". 

I strongly disagree. If a member has discontinued their membership, and thereby discontinuing their cardholder status, at the least A reapplication and reconfirmation of their their card holder status is appropriate. If their membership is lapsed, I think it's obvious that their cardholder status is lapsed also. For me the only question my mind is how we go about reestablishing card holder status. Should we go through the normal process of restarting their membership and waiting 6 months? I really don't know how to proceed with that, but if a membership is lapsed, card holder status is latched. I repeat myself that should be fairly obvious and that means reapplying and how that process is pursued is either by the current bylaws or by a new amendment to the bylaws.

For members who want to put their membership status in something like inactive or whatever because of work or other conditions, I think there's a way for us to leave card holder status in a similar andactive status. Is that part of the bylaws now? If not, we don't really have a way to do it. If it is, well then that's how we should do it. Could we make it retroactive? Yeah I don't know.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/7e46bb34-ed2e-48ed-873f-e48bedbf0887n%40googlegroups.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

As brett said:

Note: this ask should not be construed towards a particular individual case, we are looking for general guidelines we can apply universally.

The decisions made by the membership here will not be applied retroactively but instead will be applied to all new cases going forward so that it is fairly and equitably applied. We are looking to clean up the bylaws language to try and address as many edge cases or opportunities as possible, so if the membership feels that there is a difference between taking a break and storming out, that needs to be documented. If we want to have a process to reactivate, that process needs to be documented. If we want someone to just have their card turned back on, that needs to be documented as well. Historically the language in the bylaws was as follows:

Termination of Membership

The membership of a member shall terminate upon the following events:

• Upon the Members notice of termination delivered to the board of directors personally or by mail, email, or other written communication, such membership to terminate upon the date of delivery of the notice or date of postmark if deposited in the US mail.
• The Board of Directors may terminate the membership of a member at a Board Meeting with cause by consensus vote.
• Notice shall be given by any method reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the member. The member shall be given an opportunity to be heard, either orally or in writing, within 7 business days of the effective date of the termination. The hearing shall be held, or the written statement considered, by the Board of Directors.
• All rights of a member in the corporation shall cease on termination of membership as herein provided. All access cards and keys must be returned to HeatSync Labs.

Now at some point this verbiage was removed from the bylaws but there is no indication given of any vote of the membership or board decision or announcement as to why it was removed. I have spent several days combing through our archives on the groups and elsewhere and can find no mention of, or reason for, its removal. Notwithstanding, at one point we required anyone who left the lab for any reason to tender their card back on exiting the lab and that would heavily imply we originally required them to go through the initial process again should they come back and want card access. That being said, we are a member driven organization and I for one would rather see the membership decide on exactly how we want to handle these cases and then implement that into the bylaws with a corresponding vote and apply it to all cases going forward. This is another one of those cases wherein our bylaws are a bit....sparse and should probably be a bit more verbose.

Correct me if I am wrong but so far the options that I have seen from folks are:

1.) Once you get a card, you are card eligible for life. If you cancel membership and then return, whether its a day or a decade, your card is reactivated. (luis, wolfson, 
2.) If you terminate your membership and card access, for any reason, they must reapply and be voted on as if they did not have a card previously (rick)
3.) There should be a set period of time during which, if a member reactivates their membership they reactivate their card, and after that set period of time they must follow the normal process as if they did not have a card previously (kirk)


As to Kirk's question of " At the end of the day, whatever rule is decided on, execution of the rule depends on trusting people.  I prefer a HeatSync that trusts people than one that trusts complicated rules.  If the current system has been working so far, what is the reason for changing it for something else?" the reason we are addressing this now is that in the past calendar year we have had three very specific cases of individuals who had cancelled memberships coming back and wanting to regain their cards, fitting nearly every use case and when the board went to see how the current rules would apply found there was no system in place at all. In the past, it hasn't really been that big an issue because very few people who HAVE cards, exit the lab, then want to return later, and want to retain their cards. Its not a use case we have had to really examine in depth before and certainly not with so many incidents in such a short period of time.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_f1UATL%3DsxoLzXP_F%3D2MdmSS3eDrju6ig%3DuSJqJGkfUQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Eric Wood]

I would agree with the group that feels no change is needed. If a former cardholder returns, a vote should be required. If their card was rescinded or they were removed from the lab entirely, a vote would be required to restore access. In either case, I feel the most recent action should hold. Requiring additional process is unnecessary and could prevent a former cardholder from becoming active again after some time off, for whatever reason. Unless things have changed significantly, HSL relies heavily on the inactive members who continue to donate because they believe in what the lab offers. Putting a roadblock to becoming an active contributor would be a mistake.

[Eric Wood]

Sorry for the typo, if a former cardholder returns, a vote (or any other process) should NOT  be required.

[Moheeb Zara]

I think for lapse in membership or quitting(in certain cases), just reactivate. Defer to your best judgement as a community member and whats best for community and what causes undue stress or feelings of alienation.

The rules are never meant to be used as a cudgel or for over-compliance, they are there when a sensible option isn't obvious. If someone has been part of this family a long time and they get burned out and maybe leave in a huff, we should be ready to welcome them back and work towards amends one way or the other.  Thats the right compassionate way imo. 

If its been 2 years or more, maybe a new vote only because community could have changed significantly at that point and you gotta earn their trust so it could be beneficial just for that to strengthen ties and confidence. 

I actually prefer this not be a codified rule one way or the other except maybe in the case of deactivated after several years. We should be able to make decisions that are adaptive to the situation and rooted in good faith and too many rules restricts us. 

Rules can resolve conflict or they can become too dispassionate that they ignore the most important thing which is rock on and be excellent to eachother. 

I'm not gonna propose anything either way, I think when in doubt, HYH it. It could also be simple as "hey, we're not sure what to do so we'd like if you would just bring your reinstatement up at HYH" 

Perhaps just as a card vote is driven by community consensus, the determination on a member returning should be via HYH. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, could be taken as an opportunity to reintroduce yourself back and reaffirm your commitment. 

[Moheeb Zara]

That all being said, as I understand the rules. Once you are voted in for card access, then you can be given card access for whatever reason. Even if it was deactivated the right doesn't get removed and the past isnt rewritten that you were already nominated and voted on. Card activation/deactivation is not the same as repealing the results of a vote that was already passed and recorded. 

[Harry Meier]

Perhaps in the case where many years have passed and the community has changed, a simple stopgap test could be: "A current cardholder needs to re-nominate, but no vote is necessary." 

Is there at least 1 current active cardholder member still willing to vouch for you? Then sure. But if you know no one and no one knows you anymore, maybe put in some work to jog the organizational memory.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/7addccdc-cb9b-43d0-a93a-5e6c905cd038n%40googlegroups.com.

[Luis Montes]

i like the approach of current cardholders vouching.  Seems reasonable.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAP0%2Bp37ON2BH73gTebRR1qvD4w-SMW07hhHXAOLBnbCp7U5JuA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Antonio Contrisciani wrote:

> The membership of a member shall terminate upon the following events:
>

> - Upon the Members notice of termination delivered to the board of

> directors personally or by mail, email, or other written communication,
> such membership to terminate upon the date of delivery of the notice or
> date of postmark if deposited in the US mail.

> - The Board of Directors may terminate the membership of a member at a

> Board Meeting with cause by consensus vote.

> - Notice shall be given by any method reasonably calculated to provide

> actual notice to the member. The member shall be given an opportunity to be
> heard, either orally or in writing, within 7 business days of the effective
> date of the termination. The hearing shall be held, or the written
> statement considered, by the Board of Directors.

> - All rights of a member in the corporation shall cease on termination
> of membership as herein provided. *All access cards and keys must be
> returned to HeatSync Labs.*

the bylaws also state:

Revocation
Card access may be removed at any time by the Board of Directors. Card access
is immediately terminated if the member cancels their membership or lowers
their membership to a non-eligible level. Card access may be removed due to
code of conduct violation.

> Correct me if I am wrong but so far the options that I have seen from folks
> are:
>
> 1.) Once you get a card, you are card eligible for life. If you cancel
> membership and then return, whether its a day or a decade, your card is
> reactivated. (luis, wolfson,
> 2.) If you terminate your membership and card access, for any reason, they
> must reapply and be voted on as if they did not have a card previously
> (rick)
> 3.) There should be a set period of time during which, if a member
> reactivates their membership they reactivate their card, and after that set
> period of time they must follow the normal process as if they did not have
> a card previously (kirk)

I am suggesting something subltly different.

I see two cases

1. someone announces they are cancelling their membership

In this case, I think they should have to go through a vote

2. somone stops paying but with no announcement

In this case, I think that if they pay their back dues, they should be allowed
to pick up where they left off

Without an announcement, we can't know of their lack of payment was accidental
or not. we should assume good intent.

as a practical matter, I think that there is a limit to how much back dues
people will pay before deciding to start over, and if someone refuses to pay
when contacted (probably by the board) about their lack of payment, that should
be considered them cancelling thier membership. I would not put a hard limit on
this.

David Lang

[Moheeb Zara]

this is over complicating it. the bylaws probably just need to be made to be more clear about what access termination means, because it has never been treated as revocation of ability to be given card access. The vote determines we accept this person as someone who is allowed to be given a card.

We really need to move card access rules out of bylaws, its actually insane that we have that in there. 

We don't need to over think this. Just use best judgement, if not sure then say "hey community at next hyh lets all quickly vote if we should reinstate bc we dunno" 

[Kirk]

I agree with Moheeb - it does not need to be complicated, at worst an HYH vote is all that is needed, but first trust a gatekeeper to use best judgement.  The character of the card holder was vetted already - you don't have to take a driving test each time you renew your license.  I don't have a psychological need to punish someone because they left in a huff, and I see it as a waste of my time to do so.

[Milton Williams]

Hey Lab,

Milton here, I just noticed this thread so I am pretty late here. 

I think it is pretty clear that I am person #3 that has triggered this conversation, I don't mind that being known. I agree with the assessment that the bylaws don't really say how this situation should be handled. I am pretty chill about it all, I am fine with going through the card proposal process again. I believe that my contributions to the lab speak for themselves. I would be glad to point out a few things to anyone who is curious what I have done around the Lab and tell you what I intend to do that would justify card access. 

I would also like to express my love for the Lab. That has never stopped. I love watching people see possibilities in the resources here, the amazement when the project they just completed is functioning. The idea to physical manifestation of the idea brings me joy to witness every time I am in the Lab. I really love this aspect of the Lab. 

I don't want to rehash the specifics of the situation when I left. I am sufficiently over it to move on, but I would like to talk about “leaving in a huff” as it applied to me in the moment that I left.

I left very angry. I believed that if I would have stayed my anger and insistence at having my voice heard would have been divisive and would have hurt the Lab and my friends. I am not important enough to drag the Lab through that situation. I couldn't do that to the Lab I love. I decided I needed to leave to not express this anger inappropriately. I did express some of my feelings in private to people when asked (and sometimes when not asked, and definitely to too many people, sometimes I talk too much🤷‍♂️). I knew the Lab would continue without me. I still quietly donated to causes at the Lab when I heard about them and helped with people's projects when asked. This break from the Lab was good for me. It made room in my life to get my Bachelor's degree (graduating in October) and to get over my feelings. When I left I was trying to do the most mature thing ai knew how to while my mind was clouded by anger. I never stopped loving the Lab. 

Restating: I read the bylaws, suspected I might need to get card access proposed again, but decided to ask the Board because it was unclear. Hoping someone will nominate me again in the near future. 

Thank you,

Milton

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/6fGb7omqUqM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/92c340fd-b2ed-4c49-9b74-da3f806d87ean%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

Kirk wrote:

> I agree with Moheeb - it does not need to be complicated, at worst an HYH
> vote is all that is needed, but first trust a gatekeeper to use best
> judgement. The character of the card holder was vetted already - you don't
> have to take a driving test each time you renew your license. I don't have
> a psychological need to punish someone because they left in a huff, and I
> see it as a waste of my time to do so.

you do have to take an eye exam when you renew your license, and if you are a
hazmat driver you have to take a written exam every time you renew your license.

a HYH vote is what I am saying is needed, the waiting (4 months IIRC by the
current bylaws) has two related positive effects

1. it gives cardholders who weren't here when the person was last here a chance
to get to know them

2. it avoids forcing people into a "I don't knos this person, so I'll vote
against them this time" decision that will do more to discourage/anger people
than a wait would.

Getting turned down for a card by a vote can be a huge discouragement to any
further participation in the lab. I think it's better to have a short wait than
to risk it.

It also avoids another special case in the bylaws around the wait requirement
for a cardhoder. It just takes clarifying the section that says that when you
stop paying $50/month or more and your cardholder status is revoked, you don't
get it back by just starting to pay again

David Lang

[Kirk]

As far as I can tell, the only arguments put forward so far for mandatory voting by membership to reinstate card is "this is how it should be" and "how dare they leave".  There has been no example given of actual or potential disasters caused by automatic reactivation that cannot be corrected by existing procedures.  On the other hand, voting by the full membership is an expensive procedure.  There is the time to read and respond to messages (multiplied by the number of members), and the time and gas for the actual vote itself.  The whole process is aggravating to me, and I would like to do it only when necessary.

Regardless of the rule put in place, everything eventually comes down to trusting someone to execute that rule as rules don't execute themselves.  My experience is that trusting a vetted person to make good judgements, works out much better than solely trusting in rules.  In my opinion, HSL works because people are trusted to do what is right and they in turn trust that others will do what is best for HSL.  For an organization of unpaid volunteers, a culture where rules are trusted and people are not, will spell the death knell of HSL.

Trust at HSL also includes trusting people to come up with good policies.  I listen to and evaluate what is being said, but I also give great weight to who is saying it.  To be honest, members who have been around for a while, who are invested in HSL, and who show clear love for the place are the ones whose arguments I tend to listen to.

[Jay McGavren]

> the only arguments put forward so far for mandatory voting

> by membership to reinstate card is "this is how it should
> be" 

I've discussed this with some folks in person, and one sensible concern I've heard is the situation where a member is gone for years and returns. In that (admittedly hypothetical) situation, much of the rest of the membership is literally different people than when that person left. The assertion is that these new people who have to share the space with this person should get a vote on whether they have card access.

I think giving a grace period is a good compromise between "we already gave them access once, just reinstate it" and "if they don't want to lose card access they can never let their dues lapse".

Personally, I think a grace period of one year sounds reasonable.

I was going to draft a proposed one-sentence change to the bylaws when this discussion popped up. I'm still thinking of doing so, but I'll definitely wait for something close to consensus first.

-Jay

[David Lang]

personally, I think the current bylaws are clear, if you stop paying the
$50/month dues your cardholder status is revoked.

from the bylaws:

Revocation
Card access may be removed at any time by the Board of Directors. Card access is
immediately terminated if the member cancels their membership or lowers their
membership to a non-eligible level. Card access may be removed due to code of
conduct violation.

There is only one method of getting cardholder status if you don't have it, and
that is the 2 month wait + nomination + vote.

I also think it's a good idea.

I don't believe that if a person is judged trustworthy at one point, they are
trustworthy forever (if that was the case we would never have people in
positions of trust commit crimes)

If a person who left is knwon and trusted by the current cardholders, they will
get their card just after the 2 month mark. that doesn't seem like an excessivly
long time to me.

I think that if there is a question of "did they stop paying intentionally or
accidently" (i.e. payments stop with no departure annuncement) the memeber
should have the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to pay the back dues and
continue. payment issues happen.

David Lang

On Sun, 21 Jun 2026, Kirk wrote:

> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 16:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kirk <kirkathea...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [HSL] Input needed: card reactivation guidelines

[Moheeb Zara]

I think Kirk said it best: "Trust at HSL also includes trusting people to come up with good policies.  I listen to and evaluate what is being said, but I also give great weight to who is saying it.  To be honest, members who have been around for a while, who are invested in HSL, and who show clear love for the place are the ones whose arguments I tend to listen to." 

I also agree with Jay. 

At very least 2 month requirement shouldnt apply if you are a returning former cardholder. 

[Eric Ose]

I support continuing to reactivate the card access of anyone coming back to the lab when the card inactivation wasn't something voted on being removed by the board or community.

We have people coming back to HeatSync Labs choosing to participate and are treating this like it is a problem. This isn't a problem it is a blessing. One which we can throw away if we treat them as though they must first go through additional procedures.

Also someone doesn't have to be a paying member to be a cardholder. Someone can be on board scholarship. There have been times where it has been very hard to get approval for scholarship. Some people who became board members were not approved for scholarship in the past. At some points in the past the board has been hesitant to treat people like their participation was worthy enough. To avoid future problems where the board may add extra steps we should just accept what has been voted on by the community.

I disagree with one point Kirk and other shave made. Yes it's true that generally if you trusted someone before you can trust them. However a simple head trauma can cause someone to have an entirely different personality. If someone's behavior justifies removing their card access then the board or community should follow up on that.

This probably does need to be clearly established rule so that we can refer to it and the board doesn't have to feel like they are winging it every time.

Also the idea that people should know who they are doesn't seem valid. Recently we had a card holder requesting a list of everyone else who is a card holder. It was stated by at least one board member that they are not entitled to that information. If we aren't allowed to know everyone who is a card holder the idea that the community has to know them is invalid.d

Also many times I've been at the lab and a card holder I came in that I didn't know. I may still not know all of them. There isn't a way for me to know since the board won't provide a list of who is a card holder.

It is also interesting that those who have been here the longest seem to be siding with keeping people's access without extra processes while those who most favor additional barriers lean towards those who are newest.

Eric Ose

Robot Ambassador

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/31858811-5c89-4b24-b5e1-e7eb12b193dan%40googlegroups.com.

[Mike Wolfson]

"We have people coming back to HeatSync Labs choosing to participate and are treating this like it is a problem" <-- Exactly this. We should welcome people back with open arms, and make it as easy and beneficial as possible for folks to return and get involved.

-Mike

[Eric Wood]

It is good to see the level of engagement this question has raised. I wanted to respond the the argument "things may have changed while the member was away". The idea that things have changed such as processes, equipment, culture is an interesting one. I think it applies equally to inactive members that continue to contribute as it does those that quit contributing monthly. If we choose to revoke card access based on absence, the next logical step would be to revoke card access for members that continue to contribute financially each month but are not active. Should card holders be required to clean bathrooms or mop the floor quarterly? If not quarterly, then how often?

While this is an interesting question I wonder if it is a solution in search of a problem. I am certain that the lab would be better served if energy was directed towards searching for grants, looking for ways to promote the lab or putting together an interesting class.