HSL growth

[Landon Kea]

We have an exciting opportunity to grow our cardholder community!
The following 34 members have all met the requirements to become cardholders but have not yet completed the process. I would love and seek to help change that. While I can't speak about each member individually (some more than others), I would like to put forward this proposal in support of HSL's continued growth and member engagement.
Proposed Cardholders (34 Total):
1. Shane Baker
2. William Bird
3. Tim Brown
4. Matthew Buchanan
5. Carson Call
6. Chandra Carr
7. Josh Ciotti
8. John Faulkner
9. Ian Glenn
10. Marc Heiligers
11. Alicia M. Hills
12. Joshua Howard
13. Deborah Jo Johnson
14. Walter J. Mack Jr.
15. Brian Kesner
16. David Lang
17. Jordan Louie
18. Carol Milano
19. Brian Mueller
20. Thomas Niemiec
21. Rachelle Noble
22. Juan A. Palomino
23. Sofia Penabaz-Wiley
24. Travis Plympton
25. Joseph Ramiro-Shanahan
26. Robin Wilson
27. Sameer Sapre
28. Jonathan Sia
29. Kirk Spence
30. Nathanael Stutz
31. Colin Thom
32. Scott Welsch
33. Justine Yates
34. Albert Zhang
Additionally, as with previous cardholder proposals where some approved members were unable to attend at the time of the vote, I ask that the same flexibility be extended here. This would allow these members to receive API access and pick up a physical card whenever it is most convenient for them. Thank you for considering this proposal. Welcoming these members as cardholders is a great opportunity to strengthen our community and continue HSL's growth!

[Linda Krecker]

I can speak for Brian Mueller, he’s my son in law and the husband to cardholder Michelle Mueller. 

I wish I know who the rest are, I have trouble connecting names and faces. In fact I don’t usually remember names at all. If anyone on this list see this email and comes to sewing night, there is one tonight!

Linda S K Brett, Ph.D.

Artist  |  Educator

Designing Art Studio

The Art Doc 

Linkedin

botan...@gmail.com

--
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/f861b850-02e8-4133-b165-0a40c9606279n%40googlegroups.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

I can't support this proposal at all. It has nothing to do with the individuals on the list and everything to do with our processes and procedures in place.

"Card access is a privilege based on trust, not a "right" of membership" - People who have just been at the lab for a set period of time and paid the dues are not automatically eligible for card access and never have been. Card access has been a privilege granted to individuals that go above and beyond the call of duty with things like helping in the lab, running classes, co hosting open hours, etc. While I am sure that many of the people on this list meet those criteria I am just as certain that many people on the list do not meet those criteria as well.

"Any current card member can nominate a non-card member once the non-card member meets the eligibility criteria. " - The bylaws are quite clear that a member may nominate A member. not multiple members. Further, "The member making the proposal will be a mentor/responsible for the non-card member for a 6-month probationary period" I think its ludicrous to expect a single member to act as a mentor to 34 people for half a year.

Finally our watchwords baked into the bylaws:

"For example, introduce yourself during open hours, help out during HYH, make friends, make things, ask for proposals that benefit the lab, provide constructive feedback on other's proposals. If you can't come in during open hours, make friends online and ask for favors. It's tough but we're a community not a business." Its even recommended in the bylaws "Must attend HYH, or during public hours, so the community can be introduced to the individual"

This flys in the face of the way we have safeguarded the space and card ownership in the past and is extremely out of order. I am sure there are many individuals on this list, in fact I can spot several, deserving of card ownership but they should be nominated and voted individually.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAAymWvFYk-4WSmMknuZ1swABZd%3DZ3M8xZujHiYM65TZ%2BZPHEHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sheldon McGee]

This is a fantastic proposal! I have always felt it was very arbitrary how we vote in cardholders.

Are we voting for each person as an individual or is this a vote for all of them or none of them?  And by eligible are you saying all these members have been paying for at least 2 months or something like that? I forget where we landed on how many months they have been paying members and what it takes besides a nomination.

Sheldon 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALmAu87Humgv5Uge3G5UAtd_pLuLdyuopt2VA%2BNdKv1J8zOY5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rick Blake]

I agree in principle with Antonio. As a privilege, card holder status isn't a process. It's a recognition of contribution and  trustworthiness. It's not merely a matter of meeting the membership criteria, tenure and financial support for instance, it's a privilege. 

The concept of proposing 34 members be sponsored because they've 'met the criteria' entirely misses the Internet of the privilege. I'll vote on any proposed card holders, but I'll vote as if I were trusting them with the keys to my car, for instance. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAJH76Ftc9HL4SJi5%3DZzhxR-hFvzydk3w7GnPFxZ3T8jai5Se5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kirk]

I agree with Rick and Antonio, even though my name is on the list.  I don't want to sound like a snob, but cardholder access is earned, not bought.  I am not sure if this proposal is against the rules, but it sure is against the spirit of HSL in my opinion.

[David Lang]

the question for each of us on the list is can we be trusted to:

1. not steal from the lab
2. break stuff without reporting it
3. enforce proper behavior for anyone we let in to the lab

the changes over the last year have made it clear that a lot of members don't
think there should be any restrictions (other than paying $50/mont, but they
settled on paying for 2 months) on nominating members, and we just had people
arguing that one person should be able to nominate as many people as they wanted
(and passing a bylaws change to enable it). In that discussion, people argued
that forcing potential cardholders to engage with more members (to find somone
who hadn't nominated someone in the last year) was unfair and limited our growth

I believe that me being a cardholder would be benificial to the lab as it would
make it much easier for me to schedule classes. It benifits me because I am not
limited to open hours (both congestion and scheduling, I've had times when I sat
outside for an hour until someone was there to open up)

per the current bylaws those of us on the list are eligable to be voted on Aug
13 (thursday HYH) or aug 22 (saturday HYH), assuming the board approves the
bylaw change by July 30 (fotr the 13th, Aug 8 for the 22nd)

David Lang

[Kirk]

Quite frankly, this is why this proposal is a bad idea.  Someone who was just voted off the board because he did not embody the spirit of HSL, put HSL at legal risk, and who almost tore HSL apart, now thinks he is deserving of the highest honor that HSL gives.  Even though I am on the list, I definitely will vote against this proposal.

[David Lang]

but people kept reassuring me that they weren't trying to drive me out of the
lab, just saying that I coudln't represent them.

Are you now claiming that you are trying to drive me out of the lab?

David Lang

[Moheeb Zara]

You may make a proposal for anything thats the fun of proposal process. You have two weeks to refine, to get people to meet these members, get the eligible members to show up, then motion to vote on your proposal(s). If you wanna do the work thats on you, we can decide via vote. Keep in mind we have rules around if the vote is no, they're convoluted I dont remember how they work. 

Although maybe I'm misreading, but I read this as "here is who is eligible to be nominated" not a proposal for 34 cardholders (because that would be a very odd and irresponsible thing to do, but funny i guess lol )

Card access is about trusting someone with the lab, safety of others, vision, and culture. Its not just about accessing our laser after hours. "We're not a F***ing TechShop" used to be our collective response to that once upon a time. 

[Moheeb Zara]

OH that is what you're proposing. Oh jeez. On a personal note, this would not strengthen the community it would potentially destabilize it. We should have more cardholders and its good to propose it, but it should be done with care and wisely. Just handing out cards all of a sudden to 34 people introduces unpredictable consequences, it shows a massive lack of foresight and consideration to propose this especially right now when we just went through massive turbulence. I personally do not believe there is an ounce of sound reasoning behind this proposal other than theatrics of "community growth" 

We have been steadily growing, which is healthy for a community, a massive burst of people with access without shepherding them or asking them and even suggesting they not be there for the vote? I never use this cliche because I hear it too often but "its a bit like putting the cart before the horse". We don't even have our new member orientation locked in. ( I did write out a formal process though )

I love chaos, but damn this is silly. HeatSync isn't a shop where we sell memberships, it is a community, card access isn't something we need to just hand out to 34 people just because. I don't even think you should encourage everyone that walks through the doors to get a membership unless it feels right for them and they get the spirit of the place because a membership is a vote. 34 all at ounce dilutes the entire meaning behind it. 

To quote Jurassic Park, you spent so much time thinking whether or not you could instead of whether or not you should. 

But again, totally your right to propose this, you just gotta put in the effort if you wanna get it passed. I love that we can just propose anything, even ideas that don't make sense. We should buy a boat after this. 

(Also in response to david, we give card access only to people we believe can represent the space bc cardholders when sponsoring open hours especially become representative of the space, we bring this up pretty regularly)

[Malak Janus]

Wild how someone who is supposed to be on the board of the lab seems to have no knowledge of how card proposals work. They're supposed to *mean* something, not be handed out like candy. Especially when you, Landon, used to opine to me frequently about how you personally believed that cardholder access should be completely limited to only those who absolutely need it for maintaining the space and running the lab. From what I know of you, this honestly feels like a retaliatory "oh so they want to do it that way, huh?" action. Very un-lab-like. Additionally, I doubt that many of the people on this list have even asked for card access... the handful of names I recognize on there to my knowledge aren't even interested. If you're looking to tear an organization apart by abusing its mechanics, it's not going to work here even if you cover it under the guise of "for the good of the lab".

Anyway -- if we truly want a process to which someone becomes a cardholder simply by sticking around long enough then we ought to consider formalizing the process in a way that enshrines our values: openness, collaboration, mutual respect, care of environment, dedication to craft (or at least learning it), trustworthiness, and tolerance -- to name a few off the top of my head. The way we've done that has been through community vetting, and so far it's been working as well as it can (no system is perfect).

I'd be in for considering each person individually but as grapeshot like this? Sowing chaos just seems....... unfriendly at best. Do better.

M