[HSL] 24/7 access discussion (was PROPOSAL: Key Card Access for Erik Wilson)

[Nate Plamondon]

(Unhijacking the proposal thread for Erik's access.)

This is why my initial response wasn't "He's great! Give him doors now!" So far, the most I know about him is that he strikes me as a good guy, and brought in an interesting repair project. I'm not going to vote to approve his 24/7 access based solely on that; If the vote were today, I'd vote nay. Before his vote comes up, though, I hope to see him around the lab and/or here, and get to know him better. If his behavior around the (physical and digital) lab impress me, my vote will change. Jacob raised a very good point: Granting free reign to our personal- and lab-owned stuff to someone nobody knows or trusts (yet) would be madness. Don't know/trust the person up for a vote? Abstain or vote nay until you do. If they've given enough others the impression they can be trusted, they'll get enough ayes to counter you.

IMO, the system in place has the ability to work well. If someone's not around enough to get to know current members, why do they need 24/7 lab access? 
--
Nate Plamondon

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:42, Harry Meier <hjm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Exactly, but that falls under factors that may influence vote. All this debate about the process itself belongs under a new proposal if someone wants to make one. That's my point.

On Mar 2, 2012 12:25 PM, "Will Bradley" <bradle...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Has he been around the space for more than just one day?" is a totally valid question, too. Nothing is automatic with this process. The proposal system allows for the community to do almost anything.

On Mar 2, 2012 12:18 PM, "Harry Meier" <hjm...@gmail.com> wrote:

All this is moot right now. The process is how it is, which only requires a member to vouch and a vote. Built into those 2 requirements are 1 member willing to put their own name on the line and up to 2 weeks for everyone else to get to know the person. If at the vote someone doesn't like the guy or has some other reservation they can voice that opinion and sway the vote.

So the way I see it we already have 2 builtin vetting processes. For this member that's fine. If someone wants to change that process, then that would be a separate proposal which would go into effect after we vote on this member.

On Mar 2, 2012 11:47 AM, "Brian Aday" <proje...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would we wait a few months if it serves no purpose other than to discourage new members? I wouldn't have joined if that was the process and I wouldn't have encouraged anyone else to join either. 

Why don't we consider granting 24/7 with full membership and just revoke it if someone becomes a problem? 

[Nate Caine]

I'd like to see something like a $25 Basic Membership for two months.
Then if the person wants to upgrade to the $50-per-month 24/7 access,
that should be brought up for a vote after the probationary period.

During that period I'm certain I'll run into the new member.
I'll be looking for community spirit; someone that "gets it".
(Such things as cleaning up, participating in Hack-Your-Hackerspace,
lending a hand to others on their projects, or helping out on the web
site, maintenance, or the stalled signage proposal, etc.)

Lately we've had proposals sponsored by people I don't know, for new
members I've never met.
But we're suppose to vote "yes" because we're assured the person is
"cool" or "awesome".
At a previous HYH meeting, there was a round of endorsements for an
individual who didn't attend.
Seriously? Like we're suppose to make a decision--on the spot--based
on what (basically) a stranger thinks?

I'd rather have some direct interaction with the individual, see some
sustained values that I trust and admire, and vote accordingly.

[Will Bradley]

I have seen cases where people can only come in at odd hours and it's created a Catch 22 for them, just a thought, maybe we need to talk about extending hours outside of 7-10 to allow those without 8-5 jobs the opportunity to get involved, or...

[Rick Osgood]

At Eugene Maker Space we have a rule (for now at least) that you have
to be a member for two months before you can get a key. Then you need
3 key-holding members to sponsor you, and finally the board votes on
it. The two month period basically gives you time to come to the
space when you can and make friends and gain some recognition. That
way someone can't buy a key and clean us out at night when no one's
around. We also wrote in our bylaws that we can waive the 2 month
waiting period. That way if someone has been coming into the space
for months but couldn't afford membership before, they don't have to
wait the additional 2 months if the board feels comfortable that they
are cool.

Rick

[Jacob Rosenthal]

Can I add that no one who paid the money, has bitched about paying the money??

Let people help fund us. It makes them feel good. It lets them feel like they're already a part of the community and beginning to take ownership of our space as we do.

[Scott Bailey]

Nate,

Formalize it.

SB

During that period I'm certain I'll run into the new member.
I'll be looking for community spirit; someone that "gets it".
(Such things as cleaning up, participating in Hack-Your-Hackerspace,
lending a hand to others on their projects, or helping out on the web
site, maintenance, or the stalled signage proposal, etc.)

Lately we've had proposals sponsored by people I don't know, for new
members I've never met.
But we're suppose to vote "yes" because we're assured the person is
"cool" or "awesome".
At a previous HYH meeting, there was a round of endorsements for an
individual who didn't attend.
Seriously?  Like we're suppose to make a decision--on the spot--based
on what (basically) a stranger thinks?

I'd rather have some direct interaction with the individual, see some
sustained values that I trust and admire, and vote accordingly.

--
Scott Bailey

[Andrew Harris]

(I would have posted this when the discussion was active, but Time
Warner has been derpy today, so this has been a draft in my browser
for several hours now).

I like the model here at Austin Hackerspace myself. It's a bit like
the model at HeatSync Labs, though a bit less formal. It goes like
this:

0. Not exactly part of the membership process, but a waiver must be
signed by whoever enters the space. I even made my parents sign them
when they visited. :P

1. Somebody who would like to be a member pays their initial payment
of $55 and gets a provisional member form. This is a little piece of
paper with a line for their name, a box for them to put a picture, a
line for their bio, and seven lines for signatures. They are now a
provisional member.

2. Full members can sign their form after meeting them and determining
that they are not a creeper. Personally, these are my criteria:

a.) The provisional member is not a creeper, in any sense of the word.
b.) They do not smell like month-old backseat Chinese food (recently
ordered or even day-old Chinese food is fine, and sometimes
inevitable)
c.) When I talk to them, I can tell that they will have something to
add to the space, even if it's just opinions or personal experience.

3. There's a 24 hour period, during which somebody can raise a concern
about this person becoming a full member. Keep in mind that they've
paid their money but do not have a keycard yet. If somebody raises a
concern, it's discussed at the next meeting.

4. After 24 hours, if there nobody's put their foot down, the member
becomes a full member, and are given 24/7 access to the space.

It's only failed us once AFAIK, when a homeless guy started living at
the hackerspace, and then disappeared leaving behind a sandwich in his
banker box. The sandwich was removed, along with his access to the
hackerspace.

[Mike Wolfson]

My 2 cents on this:

I think a $50 member has a reasonable expectation to have 24 access to the space.  At least, that is how I read the membership guidelines on the website.  I thought, as long as I paid the $50, I would be granted a bankers box, and 24 hour access to the lab.

I think it is a good idea to have some sort of verification system to be allowed trusted access to the lab.  There should probably be some sort of probationary period. 

Here is my suggestion:
If someone wants to join, they can join at the $25 level, for some predetermined period of time (2 weeks, 2 months, 10 visits to the lab, etc).  In that time they get one sponsor (someone who really vouches for them), and 2 backers (two other people who are cool with them). After they are voted in, they can up their membership to the $50 level, and at that time, they can chose to have a key or not.

I think this is basically a combination of Rick and Nate's idea (and a few guys sitting at the table on Friday).

[Prescott Ogden]

What real problem are we trying to solve?

Are we trying to deter thieves or poisonous (but more or less honest) members?

As I recall, we've only mistakenly given access to one person, of the latter type, and it was obvious from talking to this person for half an hour. They were given a card by someone who didn't feel entitled to exclude them on behalf of the entire community. The current system was instiruted in reaponse to this and I'm confident that it effectively balances inclusiveness and control.

Thieves on the other hand, are more effectively deterred by having more cameras and door logging, and maybe, if we want to be super paranoid, keeping track of drivers license numbers.

Tl;Dr: if it's not broke, don't fix it.