AGM proposal: Updating the key holder process.

[Bracken Dawson]

There is a proposal currently on the agenda:

Proposal 5 - Updating the keyholder process

We have now updated our members area. This has meant that we can now track membership numbers, key fobs and payments along with many other features that can be integrated in the future. However, this has led to us having to update our keyholder policy as we are no longer able to “approve” keyholders in the same way. We want to make the space more accessible to members outside of normal opening hours but also want to ensure the safety of the space and its members. Keyholders will still be digitally tracked and this process only applies to new members wanting to become keyholders. 

Option 1 - A requirement to attend at least 1 members meeting and at least 1 hack the space day before approval for keys by 2 trustees and 2 members verbally. (In exceptional circumstances, attendance to other events in exchange for the events listed above can be negotiated as part of this process.)

Option 2 - To manually track via a centrally hosted Excel spreadsheet who has approved each new member until 8 members and 2 trustees have been reached.

I mostly agree with both options which makes it difficult to vote at all. The vote for no change is also missing which I believe is not allowed.

I like the change to reduce the number of votes needed, but you've inadvertently set it to just 2 votes in total, since trustees are all currently also members. I also like the idea of attending a members meeting/hack day.

I would track this via something with better transparency and record; the mailing list, which is our official communication means.

I suggest simply changing the proposal from two options into two seperate yes/no votes:

5.a: Reduce the number of votes required to approve a new keyholder to 4 members and 2 trustees (trustees who are members count towards both totals), and require the prospective keyholder to have attended one members meeting and one hack the space day before they can be granted the keyholder role by a trustee. - Yes/No.

5.b: Keyholder approvals shall be conducted on the mailing list. A prospective keyholder may request the role by sending an email to the mailing list (soma...@googlegroups.com). Once the required number of members and trustees have replied indicating their approval and the other requirements are met then a trustee or person nominated by a trustee shall update the record in the members area. - Yes/No.

Though I don't think 5.b needs to be decided by a general meeting, the trustees could just do what they need to. If you really want to check-out, check-in and merge a Microsoft Excel file then don't let me stop you.

If this thread can be concluded before 2nd March then there is time to include any changes in the final agenda which we are required to send to the mailing list 1 week before the AGM.

Thanks,
Bracken.

[Ed Chaney]

I guess option 2 is intended to the status quo here? 

With option 1, I'd strongly suggest removing the "verbal" bit as it just seems like a bad way to do business - especially as we are talking about giving people keys to all the shiny things worth lots of money, with zero accountability. It leaves the person issuing the keys in a very compromised position as there is no record of the criteria being met, just someone's word, maybe. For that reason alone I couldn't vote for that proposal, even though I really like it and think the approval criteria is better for the space and it's members.

I don't think the proposal needs to specify using Excel or the mailing list - if we come up with a better solution later on (i.e. members area integration) then would we need an AGM to adopt it?

The real question as Bracken says is if new keyholders need to attend 1 x member's meeting and 1 x hackthespace, with less emphasis on member approval. Exactly which system is used to admin this is not so important as long as there is one.

It may also be good to clarify if the proposals mean: 

 - X members plus Y trustees 

OR

 - X members, Y of which must be trustees (this is effectively how the old system worked, but not explicitly)

Thus, I would suggest - with the fewest possible changes to the existing proposals:

Option 1 - A requirement to attend at least 1 members meeting and at least 1 hack the space day before approval for keys by 2 trustees and 2 additional members. (In exceptional circumstances, attendance to other events in exchange for the events listed above can be negotiated as part of this process.)

Option 2 - No change to the current approval criteria (8 members must approve, 2 of which must be trustees)

Note that with both options, digital records must be kept.

-

Ed

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Southampton Makerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to somakeit+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/somakeit/CAE-X3sdcPx5SWEfCWcddUHQgSE%3DXt8JR07NCCd7zN7CVcm%3DXyw%40mail.gmail.com.