Proposal: extended in-person voting
48 views
Skip to first unread message
David Lang
Nov 12, 2025, 12:39:46 AMNov 12
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Today is the last day for proposals to go out to be voted on at the first HYH in
December. They do not need to be in their final form until Dec 4 (a week before
the HYH meeting). I had been planning to hold off on several things, but with
the proposal to throw out a lot of the current bylaws, I am going to go through
the points that I think need improvement and see where the dicussion takes us
over the next couple of weeks before the proposal must be finalized. I am going
to do multiple small proposals instead of one big one.
in the discussion on the Electronic Voting proposal, the suggestion was made to
instead allow for extended in-person voting instead. I prefer the electronic
voting option, but am adding this in-person version as an alternitive.
The reasons to have moting happen on more than just a HYH meeting are the same,
so I won't list them here until we get closer to finilizing the proposal
All proposals that are submitted before the end of the month get voted on in the
next month's voting window.
Each month, the voting window is that last full week (Sun- Sat) in the month
that does not have a holiday.
During the first week of the month, it is the responsiblity of the Secretary to
list things that will be voted on this month (proposals, cardholder candidates,
etc), prepare the ballots, and announce the voting window for that month. As
part of preparing the ballots, the Secretary will create a list of members who
are eligible to vote on each issue (currently it's any member for most things,
existing cardholders for new cardholder candidates)
It is the responsiblity of the person making a proposal or nominating a
cardholder to finalize the wording 7 days prior to the voting window opeining
and get the final wording to the Secretary at that point.
During the voting window (Sunday to Saturday), all hosts will have an additional
responsibility of assisting members to vote, they will check off the person from
a list kept on-site of the people eligible to vote, give them their ballot, and
secure the ballot in a ballot box (basic voting security rules to apply)
within a week of the end of the voting window, the Secretary with a 2nd member
(board member???) who does not share interest (see board member rules about
shared interest, family members, etc) will retrieve the ballots, count them, and
report the results.
David Lang
December. They do not need to be in their final form until Dec 4 (a week before
the HYH meeting). I had been planning to hold off on several things, but with
the proposal to throw out a lot of the current bylaws, I am going to go through
the points that I think need improvement and see where the dicussion takes us
over the next couple of weeks before the proposal must be finalized. I am going
to do multiple small proposals instead of one big one.
in the discussion on the Electronic Voting proposal, the suggestion was made to
instead allow for extended in-person voting instead. I prefer the electronic
voting option, but am adding this in-person version as an alternitive.
The reasons to have moting happen on more than just a HYH meeting are the same,
so I won't list them here until we get closer to finilizing the proposal
All proposals that are submitted before the end of the month get voted on in the
next month's voting window.
Each month, the voting window is that last full week (Sun- Sat) in the month
that does not have a holiday.
During the first week of the month, it is the responsiblity of the Secretary to
list things that will be voted on this month (proposals, cardholder candidates,
etc), prepare the ballots, and announce the voting window for that month. As
part of preparing the ballots, the Secretary will create a list of members who
are eligible to vote on each issue (currently it's any member for most things,
existing cardholders for new cardholder candidates)
It is the responsiblity of the person making a proposal or nominating a
cardholder to finalize the wording 7 days prior to the voting window opeining
and get the final wording to the Secretary at that point.
During the voting window (Sunday to Saturday), all hosts will have an additional
responsibility of assisting members to vote, they will check off the person from
a list kept on-site of the people eligible to vote, give them their ballot, and
secure the ballot in a ballot box (basic voting security rules to apply)
within a week of the end of the voting window, the Secretary with a 2nd member
(board member???) who does not share interest (see board member rules about
shared interest, family members, etc) will retrieve the ballots, count them, and
report the results.
David Lang
Luis Montes
Nov 12, 2025, 2:47:54 PMNov 12
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
In my opinion this removes a major incentive to attend HYH. People would miss out on in-person discussions and of course cleaning the place.
This also forces people that are already volunteering to host open hours yet another job.
I'm absolutely voting no on this.
--
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/4467n76q-77nr-09n7-714p-p87n346sr09q%40ynat.uz.
David Lang
Nov 12, 2025, 5:39:51 PMNov 12
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Luis Montes wrote:
> In my opinion this removes a major incentive to attend HYH. People would
> miss out on in-person discussions and of course cleaning the place.
> This also forces people that are already volunteering to host open hours
> yet another job.
If the only incentive to go to a HYH is to vote, then nobody should bother
> In my opinion this removes a major incentive to attend HYH. People would
> miss out on in-person discussions and of course cleaning the place.
> This also forces people that are already volunteering to host open hours
> yet another job.
attending a HYH where there isn't a vote scheduled, correct?
I think that is a horrible justification for holding votes only during a HYH.
I personally very much prefer the electronic voting option, but some people are
opposed to electronic voting, so this is a way to improve the ability for people
who have scheduling conflicts with HYH meetings to be able to vote without going
to electronic voting.
David Lang
Luis Montes
Nov 13, 2025, 8:53:18 AMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
I just said major, not only. (you quoted it).
And yes it is a major reason. People should also come to HYH to work on the space, discuss current and new business, and help clean.
And yes it is a major reason. People should also come to HYH to work on the space, discuss current and new business, and help clean.
We generally get a much better turnout when there's something important to vote on.
We're a makerspace first. Being present matters. I totally get that we all have different schedules and family responsibilities.
During times over the years when I've had other things going on keeping me from the lab, I had no expectation that I had an equal say in how it was run that members actually showing up and participating did.
During times over the years when I've had other things going on keeping me from the lab, I had no expectation that I had an equal say in how it was run that members actually showing up and participating did.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/4603rs1q-p9s5-7p98-o4n9-64o944955p87%40ynat.uz.
David Lang
Nov 13, 2025, 10:10:55 AMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
just because you can't make it to the lab on the 2nd tuesday evening and 4th
saturday morning doesn't mean that you aren't at the lab a lot the rest of the
month
David Lang
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025, Luis Montes wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 06:53:02 -0700
> From: Luis Montes <mont...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: extended in-person voting
saturday morning doesn't mean that you aren't at the lab a lot the rest of the
month
David Lang
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025, Luis Montes wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 06:53:02 -0700
> From: Luis Montes <mont...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: extended in-person voting
Eric Ose
Nov 13, 2025, 10:20:58 AMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
It is on Thursdays not Tuesdays.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/83994860-6396-q64s-5810-orrpo014o1nn%40ynat.uz.
Rick Blake
Nov 13, 2025, 3:40:33 PMNov 13
to Heatsync Labs
I was unable to attend Wednesday night events for more than a decade due to other preexisting commitments. Then I finally got those removed, and I was able.
COVID-19 destroyed that. And then the Wednesday night got scheduled again. Out.
I've singled out 2nd and 4th Thursdays for HYH for more than 12 years, not without some challenges. Then 4th was moved to Saturday, morning, a time already scheduled and precious to me. But I tried.
I've been to only 3 Saturday HYH meetings, and twice there were only 2 of us attending.
It takes both flexibility and commitment to do this. I understand some can't, more that you might think (ask me about Mondays and Fridays), but if you move HYH again, you risk excluding me, to coin a phrase I was confirmed with when I disapproved of Saturday HYH. We cannot find a single date to meet everyone's needs. It's unfortunate.
But, importantly, the Labs was built, in some part, on HYH. Attending is crucial. I hope all who want to can, but I know that's not possible. I hope they can attend sometimes, at least. And I hope they will communicate their concerns and opinions to those who do attend. I've heard those from time to time, and they've had an impact. At least participate in the discussion.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEk_gvD40_0ZN%2B_BwsUi3Ky5PmO0%2BchMQpUmGWkmUdd6fegdrw%40mail.gmail.com.
David Lang
Nov 13, 2025, 3:56:01 PMNov 13
to Heatsync Labs
Rick Blake wrote:
> But, importantly, the Labs was built, in some part, on HYH. Attending is
> crucial. I hope all who want to can, but I know that's not possible. I hope
> they can attend sometimes, at least. And I hope they will communicate their
> concerns and opinions to those who do attend. I've heard those from time to
> time, and they've had an impact. At least participate in the discussion.
My question is if people who's schedule prevents them from attending should be
> But, importantly, the Labs was built, in some part, on HYH. Attending is
> crucial. I hope all who want to can, but I know that's not possible. I hope
> they can attend sometimes, at least. And I hope they will communicate their
> concerns and opinions to those who do attend. I've heard those from time to
> time, and they've had an impact. At least participate in the discussion.
cut out of the decision making?
In my opinion, with a volunteer organization, the fact that your schedule
prevents you from attending on a particular night should not mean that your
voice (aka vote) should be able to be ignored.
This proposal is a way to get more people involved with voting if the members
insist on in-person voting. The electronic voting proposal (which I prefer)
provides for what I think is an easier way to vote, but again the intent is to
get more people involved with decision making.
Currently, about 4% of the membership is enough to decide an issue at a typical
HYH meeting, and as we gain membership, there is no reason to believe that this
percentage will increase rather than decrease.
Similarly, for approving new cardholders, only about 5% of existing cardholders
need to approve a new candidate. We could come up with a bunch of new rules
about how a new cardholder is nominated (such as the ones implemented by the
last board), but I think a better answer is just to widen the voter base. If
we go from needing 5% of cardholders to approve a new candidate to 20%, I think
trusting the judgement of the existing cardholders rather than imposing rules is
better.
If someone plans to challenge a disciplinary action against them by the board,
they can get a bunch of their friends to show up at a HYH and since other people
won't know that there will be a vote, easily overwelm the vote of the normal
attendees to overturn the action. a wider voting base would prevent this sort of
manipulation.
David Lang
Moheeb Zara
Nov 13, 2025, 4:19:22 PMNov 13
to HeatSync Labs
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand doing things in person allows for better discussion where meaning doesnt get lost over text. On the other hand, doing things over a period of time or remotely makes it more accesible to people who can't make it in for whatever reason. The idea was doing it in person filtered out the online lurkers. It also the it gets people in to actually hack the hackerspace in terms of cleaning or rearranging or getting stuff done.
To me a healthy compromise would be to have video chat available to allow people to conference in to the HYH to at the very least offer their thoughts. Maybe this will in turn encourage more in person attendance. Especially if the vote still has to be cast in person. If you do it over the course of a week or whatever it does create extra work though and means things wont be decided at the HYH it was discussed which means certain things won't get done immediately after which is sometimes part of HYH to put decisions into motion. It also means side discussions can occur after the HYH allowing people to lobby to change a vote without rebuttal.
It might add unnecessary complication. So I would urge you to consider a compromise on this or at least amend your proposal with alternative mechanisms so that when its up for discussion we have options as a community to come up with something that doesnt have the potential to be cumbersome. In any case, no system is perfect but whatever community feels will be better, we can always propose to change it back if it isnt working. Nothing is ever set in stone.
To me a healthy compromise would be to have video chat available to allow people to conference in to the HYH to at the very least offer their thoughts. Maybe this will in turn encourage more in person attendance. Especially if the vote still has to be cast in person. If you do it over the course of a week or whatever it does create extra work though and means things wont be decided at the HYH it was discussed which means certain things won't get done immediately after which is sometimes part of HYH to put decisions into motion. It also means side discussions can occur after the HYH allowing people to lobby to change a vote without rebuttal.
It might add unnecessary complication. So I would urge you to consider a compromise on this or at least amend your proposal with alternative mechanisms so that when its up for discussion we have options as a community to come up with something that doesnt have the potential to be cumbersome. In any case, no system is perfect but whatever community feels will be better, we can always propose to change it back if it isnt working. Nothing is ever set in stone.
Rick Blake
Nov 13, 2025, 4:40:15 PMNov 13
to Heatsync Labs
"If someone plans to challenge a disciplinary action against them by the board, they can get a bunch of their friends to show up at a HYH and since other people won't know that there will be a vote, easily overwelm the vote of the normal attendees to overturn the action. a wider voting base would prevent this sort of manipulation."
We have a process for conduct violations, and I was part of one such process. The vote was to, I believe, appoint a committee to investigate and recommend. We did. We weren't excessively swayed by other votes. I don't believe. The process survives even a minority trying to bring an action against another member.
--
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/8c9a5410-2a27-4c28-802f-8b6bba502aa2n%40googlegroups.com.
Ryan Mcdermott
Nov 13, 2025, 5:03:04 PMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
>My question is if people who's schedule prevents them from attending should be
cut out of the decision making?
cut out of the decision making?
Yes. I am not at the lab very much, and you should care substantially less about what I think than people who are there every day. When Aly and I were both super active, we planned our life/schedule around HYH, and therefore had more of a say in how it ran.
This is just a natural, and good, filter. The people who are there at the in person community that we have (which is not an online community) have more of a say in how the in person (not online, since we are not an online community) facility which our in person (not online) community uses looks, and the policies which govern our in person (not online) community.
I have tons of experience, and can list all the spaces I've been involved in and stuff I've done and people I've consulted and blah blah blah blah blah, but none of it matters if I don't show up in person. That is a requirement.
We are not a forum.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_e4BBpFaYd4rY03%2BGrD9tSnFniG_X6FGUYAHxrSUwrU-g%40mail.gmail.com.
Antonio Contrisciani
Nov 13, 2025, 5:11:57 PMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
There is a BIG difference between someone who is not active in the lab and someone who can not come in on a specific day twice a month. I spend between 15-40 hours a month at the lab between my personal projects, 3d print days, machine repairs, and one off items, but I simply cannot make Thursday nights at 7 pm. I have a commitment on thursdays from 5 pm to 9 pm that cannot be moved or rescheduled. That doesn't mean I am any less committed to the lab or involved, simply that I can't be there on that specific day.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAB7v%2BBKzBdWVDpt455TBGt55JV01GwKft7abJ_6LBny8P%2B5%3Dzg%40mail.gmail.com.
David Lang
Nov 13, 2025, 5:37:33 PMNov 13
to HeatSync Labs
Moheeb Zara wrote:
> I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand doing things in person allows
> for better discussion where meaning doesnt get lost over text. On the other
> hand, doing things over a period of time or remotely makes it more
> accesible to people who can't make it in for whatever reason.
> The idea was doing it in person filtered out the online lurkers. It also the
> it gets people in to actually hack the hackerspace in terms of cleaning or
> rearranging or getting stuff done.
both of these are things I am less worried about. Since voting requies paying
> I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand doing things in person allows
> for better discussion where meaning doesnt get lost over text. On the other
> hand, doing things over a period of time or remotely makes it more
> accesible to people who can't make it in for whatever reason.
> The idea was doing it in person filtered out the online lurkers. It also the
> it gets people in to actually hack the hackerspace in terms of cleaning or
> rearranging or getting stuff done.
membership fees each month, online lurkers are less of a problem.
And I don't think we need to tie cleaning to the ability to vote :-)
> To me a healthy compromise would be to have video chat available to allow
> people to conference in to the HYH to at the very least offer their
> thoughts. Maybe this will in turn encourage more in person attendance.
> Especially if the vote still has to be cast in person. If you do it over
> the course of a week or whatever it does create extra work though and means
> things wont be decided at the HYH it was discussed which means certain
> things won't get done immediately after which is sometimes part of HYH to
> put decisions into motion. It also means side discussions can occur after
> the HYH allowing people to lobby to change a vote without rebuttal.
are good IMHO, including zoom during a HYH or other meeting.
> It might add unnecessary complication. So I would urge you to consider a
> compromise on this or at least amend your proposal with alternative
> mechanisms so that when its up for discussion we have options as a
> community to come up with something that doesnt have the potential to be
> cumbersome. In any case, no system is perfect but whatever community feels
> will be better, we can always propose to change it back if it isnt working.
> Nothing is ever set in stone.
David Lang
David Lang
Nov 13, 2025, 5:38:42 PMNov 13
to Heatsync Labs
I'll talk to you about this in person. I don't want to make it seem like I'm
attacking someone in public on this issue.
David Lang
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025, Rick Blake wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 14:39:59 -0700
> From: Rick Blake <rick...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: Heatsync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/8c9a5410-2a27-4c28-802f-8b6bba502aa2n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>
attacking someone in public on this issue.
David Lang
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025, Rick Blake wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 14:39:59 -0700
> From: Rick Blake <rick...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: Heatsync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: extended in-person voting
>
>
>> .
>>
>
>
David Lang
Nov 13, 2025, 5:40:15 PMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Ryan Mcdermott wrote:
>> My question is if people who's schedule prevents them from attending
> should be
> cut out of the decision making?
>
> Yes. I am not at the lab very much, and you should care substantially less
> about what I think than people who are there every day. When Aly and I
> were both super active, we planned our life/schedule around HYH, and
> therefore had more of a say in how it ran.
but if you were there monday, tuesday, wednesday and friday does that mean that
>> My question is if people who's schedule prevents them from attending
> should be
> cut out of the decision making?
>
> Yes. I am not at the lab very much, and you should care substantially less
> about what I think than people who are there every day. When Aly and I
> were both super active, we planned our life/schedule around HYH, and
> therefore had more of a say in how it ran.
you should have no say, but someone wo is there on Thursday and Saturday should?
the ability to attend on a particular night does not make a good proxy for how
much you contribute to the space.
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/CALSEc_e4BBpFaYd4rY03%2BGrD9tSnFniG_X6FGUYAHxrSUwrU-g%40mail.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/CALSEc_e4BBpFaYd4rY03%2BGrD9tSnFniG_X6FGUYAHxrSUwrU-g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>
David Lang
Nov 13, 2025, 5:54:51 PMNov 13
to heatsy...@googlegroups.com
one aspect that I did not get into for this proposal, but would need to be
defined.
what quorum would be needed for an extended vote? still 8 people voting?
I think it should be higher, and should be define in some way that scales with
the membership.
for the electronic voting proposal I said that we should count the number of
people who scan their badges or sign in to the member website over the prior 6
months and the quorum would be 50% of that count.
This avoids the quorum going high due to a large number of inactive members that
would prevent active members from completing a vote, and would scale with future
membership variations which a fixed number wouldn't
(any way to get some rough idea of the number of different people that are
active to use as a starting point would work for me, it just needs to not add a
lot of work, for members or for the people counting)
thoughts?
David Lang
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025, David Lang wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 22:39:36 -0700 (MST)
> From: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [HSL] Proposal: extended in-person voting
defined.
what quorum would be needed for an extended vote? still 8 people voting?
I think it should be higher, and should be define in some way that scales with
the membership.
for the electronic voting proposal I said that we should count the number of
people who scan their badges or sign in to the member website over the prior 6
months and the quorum would be 50% of that count.
This avoids the quorum going high due to a large number of inactive members that
would prevent active members from completing a vote, and would scale with future
membership variations which a fixed number wouldn't
(any way to get some rough idea of the number of different people that are
active to use as a starting point would work for me, it just needs to not add a
lot of work, for members or for the people counting)
thoughts?
David Lang
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025, David Lang wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 22:39:36 -0700 (MST)
> From: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [HSL] Proposal: extended in-person voting
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages