Proposal: Bylaws amendment regarding resubmission for card access

[Jay McGavren]

TL;DR: Someone who is rejected for card access currently has to wait 6 months to be eligible again. There's no option to bring it up earlier than that because there's no way to make "substantial changes" to a card access proposal. Let's make it so that HYH can vote to make someone eligible earlier than the 6 months, if our members really want it.


It is proposed to add this paragraph to the "CARD ACCESS" section, "Nomination / Proposal" subsection, of the HeatSync Labs bylaws:

"If the card access proposal does not pass, it may be resubmitted as outlined in the "PROPOSAL PROCESS" section, except that there is no requirement for substantial changes to the proposal. Resubmission does not require a separate access nomination and does not count against a member's limit of 1 nomination per year."


Reason for the proposal and expected benefits:

Cardholder access is currently handled using the proposal process. This means that, like all other proposals, "If a proposal fails, it cannot be resubmitted for six (6) months".

After our board secretary Brett Neese was rejected for card access at last night's Hack Your Hackerspace, multiple parties expressed surprise and dismay that the waiting period was that long.

https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws#PROPOSAL_PROCESS , "Resubmission Restrictions" subsection states:

"If a proposal fails, it cannot be resubmitted for six (6) months, unless:

* The proposer makes substantial changes, and the members present at an HYH meeting vote to allow early reconsideration.
* To be eligible for early reconsideration, the proposer must clearly outline the new information or significant changes before members vote on whether it should return to the agenda.
* Vote for reconsideration can be made 4 weeks after reconsideration request is made.
* Substantial Change Examples:
** ✅ A significant reduction or expansion in scope, addressing major concerns.
** ✅ Securing external funding that eliminates previous financial concerns.
** ❌ Minor wording tweaks or slight budget reallocations do not qualify.
* The discussion on whether a proposal qualifies for reconsideration should take place as part of an HYH meeting agenda item.
* A similar proposal that only modifies minor details will be treated as a duplicate and will not be placed on the agenda until the six-month restriction expires."

This is why this amendment is necessary. You can't make "substantial changes" to a card access nomination: the member either has card access or they don't.


Estimated costs and resource requirements (if applicable):

Not applicable.

The timeline for implementation:

Immediate amendment to bylaws.

[Jay McGavren]

I'm sure some folks are concerned about reducing the waiting period, so let me call further attention to this clause:

"Vote for reconsideration can be made 4 weeks after reconsideration request is made."

So someone seeking resubmission for card access still faces these hurdles:

- There must be a motion and vote at Hack Your Hackerspace BEFORE early reconsideration is even allowed. These voters will be prejudiced by knowing this person was previously rejected for card access.

- There is then a 4-week waiting period.

- There must be ANOTHER vote at the next HYH, again facing a prejudiced voter base, with all the same requirements regarding cardholders being present.

So that's TWO votes with a month-long waiting period between them. IMO members will have to REALLY want this person to have card access. Really, I think Brett Neese is one of only a few people who could clear all these hurdles.

-Jay

[David Lang]

what should the wait period be?

If there is someone who is toxic and rejected, I don't think we should have to
reject them at every HYH, there should be some limit (either a limit in the
number of reconsiderations in a time period, or some delay between
reconsiderations)

David Lang

[David Lang]

Jay McGavren wrote:

> I'm sure some folks are concerned about reducing the waiting period, so let
> me call further attention to this clause:
>
> "Vote for reconsideration can be made 4 weeks after reconsideration request
> is made."
>
> So someone seeking resubmission for card access still faces these hurdles:
>
> - There must be a motion and vote at Hack Your Hackerspace BEFORE early
> reconsideration is even allowed. These voters will be prejudiced by knowing
> this person was previously rejected for card access.
> - There is then a 4-week waiting period.
> - There must be ANOTHER vote at the next HYH, again facing a prejudiced
> voter base, with all the same requirements regarding cardholders being
> present.
>
> So that's TWO votes with a month-long waiting period between them. IMO
> members will have to REALLY want this person to have card access. Really, I
> think Brett Neese is one of only a few people who could clear all these
> hurdles.

Thanks for that clarification, that makes much more sense than just eliminating
the 6 month wait time and letting them get voted on every 14 days (which is what
your original proposal sounded like)

David Lang

[Jay McGavren]

Yeah, I too am worried about creating openings for bad actors. I (obviously) think this proposal doesn't do that, though.

I also trust that our HYH voters have a memory. I think they would get real sick, real fast, of having to re-vote on same re-proposal every 2 weeks.

-Jay

[austin townsend]

I agree with this proposal. I don't really see a risk in creating openings for bad actors. First, as it stands, cardholders can only nominate one person per year. Therefore, if you were a bad actor you would need to get a new person to nominate you after each rejection. For instance, I will not be able to nominate another person until next year, and cannot resubmit my proposal. I also agree with Jay that the community would tire of it quickly, even if getting that many nominations in a row were possible.

Leave it up to the community and cardholders to determine when to propose someone again. The person can spend some time understanding why they may have been rejected and work on it. Then, if another cardholder feels it's a good time they can make and advocate for a new proposal, whether that is 1 month or 10 months later. I don't see why it needs to be a strict time period.

- Austin

--
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/c608b903-452e-4113-94e1-caa53fe47047n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

austin townsend wrote:

> I agree with this proposal. I don't really see a risk in creating openings
> for bad actors. First, as it stands, cardholders can only nominate one
> person per year. Therefore, if you were a bad actor you would need to get a
> new person to nominate you after each rejection. For instance, I will not
> be able to nominate another person until next year, and cannot resubmit my
> proposal. I also agree with Jay that the community would tire of it
> quickly, even if getting that many nominations in a row were possible.

this proposal would not require a new person to nominate the candidate each
time.

> Leave it up to the community and cardholders to determine when to propose
> someone again. The person can spend some time understanding why they may
> have been rejected and work on it. Then, if another cardholder feels it's a
> good time they can make and advocate for a new proposal, whether that is 1
> month or 10 months later. I don't see why it needs to be a strict time
> period.

that is an interesting point, would a different person nominating a cardholder
count as a different proposal?

David Lang

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/c608b903-452e-4113-94e1-caa53fe47047n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[austin townsend]

Good point, David. I was reading on my phone and missed that part. I didn't think about that though, if someone else makes a proposal does it even count? I'm not sure of the current wording of the rules. We should look into that.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/91q91o7n-1p05-37o3-sss3-ss033n337r8s%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

austin townsend wrote:

> Good point, David. I was reading on my phone and missed that part. I didn't
> think about that though, if someone else makes a proposal does it even
> count? I'm not sure of the current wording of the rules. We should look
> into that.

I could see the issue addressed by either having someone else do the nomination
(burning their 'one per year' option) or by allowing more expidited
reconsideration (as per Jay's second post)

just eliminating the 6 month wait and having another vote (which is what I
initially read the proposal to be) seems to leave too much room for abuse.

David Lang

[David Lang]

I will say I was very surprised to see how this discussion went.

I expected the main questions to be

1. do we trust this person to not hurt themselves or the lab if here unattended
2. do we trust this person to not steal from the lab
3. do we trust this person to supervise anyone they let into the lab.

Instead we had disussions about how the person who nominated tham had only jsut
gotten their card, so probably shouldn't be nominating anyone (with no idea of
how long they need to wait)

complaints that Brett referenced prior experience with other hackerspaces too
much rather than just agreeing with whatever the person who had been at HSL
longer said a hackerspace should be like

complaining that as the Secretary for HSL, Brett was taking minutes every
meeting instead of some random member doing so

complaining about Brett's discussions with others as a board member (and the
perception from some that Brett wasn't fairly listening to them)

questioning why Brett needed card access (the stated meeting, being able to get
in before the scheduled HSL meeting to setup rather than having to wait outside
until someone else arrived)

complaints that the board members are attending HSL meetings at all

and similar things


This is the first cardholder proposal discussion I have witnessed, is this
normal?

all but a couple of these things only apply to someone who is a board member
applying for cardholder status, what do you discuss about cardholder candidates?

carholders do not have any more voting power than a normal member has in terms
of changing the direction of the space (only in approving other cardholders)

David Lang

On Fri, 13 Feb 2026, Jay McGavren wrote:

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:05:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jay McGavren <j...@mcgavren.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [HSL] Proposal: Bylaws amendment regarding resubmission for card
> access

[Brett Neese]

Also seems pretty unfair that I had no opportunity to respond to any of these concerns as I was out of the room. I don’t take notes in my capacity as board member, I do so in my capacity as member. When I showed up to my first HYH in July (well before I became a board member), nobody was doing it and they weren’t getting posted to the list. So I stepped up. That should be considered a point in my favor and not against, correct? 

And all of the concerns aren’t something I can really change unless I resign (should I resign if I want a key?)

I have some issues with creating special carve outs to handle one specific situation, and I worry about this proposal complicating our already complicated bylaws (is anyone going to be able to follow that entire thread of first a resubmission and then a second vote?)

But clearly something needs to be done about our membership process if board members somehow have less rights in spite of doing more work and taking on more responsibility, especially when nobody else was or is stepping up to the plate. And everyone deserves the chance to redeem themselves, especially when they don’t have any formal CoC complaints against them. So, while I will likely abstain in the interest of fairness, I support this proposal. 

Brett

--
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/p2312o69-p299-pno3-3o6s-0q9q442o2s7p%40ynat.uz.

[Jay McGavren]

> I have some issues with creating special carve outs to handle one specific situation, and

If this were specifically about you, I wouldn't be making a proposal for an amendment to the bylaws. I can see this being a problem for someone else. (And therefore for the lab as well.)

> I worry about this proposal complicating our already complicated bylaws (is anyone going to be able to follow that entire thread of first a resubmission and then a second vote?)

That's why I'm trying to limit the scope as much as possible.

Most proposals can be re-submitted, but not card access (due to the "substantial changes" requirement). This is about creating more consistency, not less.

[David Lang]

Jay McGavren wrote:

>> I worry about this proposal complicating our already complicated bylaws
> (is anyone going to be able to follow that entire thread of first a
> resubmission and then a second vote?)
>
> That's why I'm trying to limit the scope as much as possible.
>
> Most proposals can be re-submitted, but not card access (due to the
> "substantial changes" requirement). This is about creating more
> consistency, not less.

Card access is diffeent from any other proposal and I would say should not be
called a 'proposal' to avoid confusion. It has a different time from when it's
raised to when it's voted on, who can vote is different, the quorum required is
different, the process of disucssion is different (the candidate leaving the
room for part of the discussion)

So I would suggest that instead of calling it a proposal and further
complicating the proposal rules with special cases for it, just make it a
separate section and lay everything out in that section.

David Lang

[David Lang]

And if we are re-writing the section on nominations entirely, let's also address
the complaint that was raised about a new cardholder nominating another new
cartholder just a couple weeks after getting their card.

If that's not acceptable, how long does someone need to wait after getting their
card before they can nominate someone else?

It's not fair to hold violating unwritten rules against a nominee.

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

It is 100% acceptable to nominate someone the next day.  We gave Austin card access.  We trust him with the building.  I completely trust him to make a nomination that would still require a vote to pass anyway.

I have no idea why there is any debate around this.

 

It's not fair to hold violating unwritten rules against a nominee.

David Lang

--
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/sr043761-0218-1qp3-qs89-5onnos0rp243%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

At the very least, we need some of these norms documented if members are going to object over them. The current guidelines are essentially “get involved;” I don’t think anyone is trying to claim I’m not involved - the concerns Lang mentioned really suggest if anything people think I’m TOO involved.

if I had known Austin’s nomination as a new cardholder was a black mark I would’ve declined his nomination. It really kinda sucks that I didn’t hear this feedback sooner and when I did hear it was secondhand from things said behind my back with no opportunity to defend. Certainly there were others who wanted to nominate me and had offered but the feedback we received previously was a desire to increase the diversity of the nominator pool so I declined their offers.

The feedback I did get in advance was nebulous at best, and certainly not actionable.

I don’t want to cause more drama and division in the community and I really tried to do everything cleanly, well beyond what the bylaws and documentation require. I even mentioned as such during the portion of my nomination that was open. I was prepared to ask Austin to withdraw it there and then. Nobody said anything until it was too late. I’m not perfect, but I’m trying to be better every day. I’m not even sure I would’ve accepted a 4/3 vote in favor for that reason. I would’ve asked for feedback, worked to improve myself to win over the no voters, and waited if I could’ve predicted this outcome.

I’m also not trying to be a sore loser but this kind of malarkey is cancerous to our long term viability as an organization. What message are we telling new members with this mess? Don’t involve yourself too much or you’ll get bitten? No wonder our finances are in a downward spiral. No wonder HYH attendance is in the toilet.

I’d go so far and say the way this was handled goes against the “be excellent to each other” portion of our code of conduct. Anyway, like with many things, documentation would help.

Brett

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdA0jwrvU5E0QkRfVZMy-G0jRQiwvQf8OkNseVj%2BaA44Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Moheeb Zara]

I have alot of opinions on this but i'll aim for the high notes.

I think it was a critical mistake to ever have any of the card access stuff in the bylaws to begin with. 

A lot of the rules are HOSTILE and discourage card sponshorship and were frankly put in because people were mistrusting (even if they believed they were doing the right thing). 

If you have rules that basically say "we cant trust you if people vote against something you proposed, we dont trust you to make a good decision for another year, or we dont trust you to not abuse the system and we dont trust the memberships vote for a year". 

Hackerspaces are built on trust and if we have rule after rule after rule to deal with strawman situations then we're just digging a deeper hole we will have to crawl out of later and creating an environment of mistrust. 

We can bikeshed this all year or we can acknowledge that the existing rule is stupid and adds complexity, confusion, and prevents meaningful growth. We should be deciding on the fly as a community how we feel about stuff. Hackerspaces are meant to be in flux and be about community, compassion, and people. Not dispassionate rules that we have to eggshell around like we're an emotionless corporate machine. 

Obviously some rules are neccesary, but this never should have been in the bylaws to begin with. 

I support Jay's version in lieu of what we should do, which is move it all out of the bylaws anyway.