PROPOSAL: update card access requirements in bylaws.

[Luis Montes]

remove ", for a minimum of six (6) months " from bylaws.

replace it with: ", for a minimum of two (2) months " from bylaws.

The community never agreed to the 6 month requirement set by the previous board.

I personally don't think even 2 months is necessary since card access requires a majority of card holder votes during an HYH anyway.  This is just a compromise that I hope works.

-Luis

[David Lang]

The board has put this on our list of things to work on, but have not gotten to it yet.

I will point out up front that I am an interested party in this, as I have not been a member long enough to be nominated as a cardholder, so the results of the decision will directly affect me. As such, I was not planning to push for any changes in this until I qualified under the old rules (January)

A couple other aspects of gaining cardholder status that you may want to put in
your proposal:

* Members may only make “one” card access nomination per year. Example: If Member A nominates someone, whether it passes or not, Member A may not nominate another person for 12 months.

If such a limit should be in place, should a card access nominee that is rejected count against the limit?

or, looking the other way, should approval of a nominee reset/shorten the clock?

* the current vote requirement is the majority of a minimum of 5 existing cardholders.

should this be changed?

* Should election to the Board make someone a cardholder who wasn't one before?

Or should it still require a vote of cardholders, but exempt the board member
from time/nomination limits?

admittedly this is a rare thing, and will become more rare with a shorter time limit. I was going to wait on this (self interest conflict as I mentioned above), but if we're going to have a proposal around changing cardholder eligibility, let's have one to revise it rather than several (unless there is substantial disagreement on infividual points)


I was not here when these limits were put in place, and I understand that there can be a valid desire to avoid too much rapid churn and risk, and as such, both a waiting period and a nomination limit are valid tools. IMHO the 6 month and 1 per year limits are both on the high side and thing easing things is reasonable.

Do any of the prior board members want to provide more background?

David Lang

[David Lang]

Note: The current rules in the bylaws for ammending them are:

* Proposed amendments to these bylaws shall be submitted in physical or electronic writing to the Board of Directors. At a meeting of the Board of Directors, a majority vote of the full quorum of officers of the Board of Directors will be required for the amendment to become enacted and effective upon completing the vote.

The current board agrees on the need for more transparency and member input to bylaw changes and has a full review of the bylaws as one of the higher priority items on our to-do list.
In our first brainstorming session, we identified a number of areas of the bylaws that we wanted to look into and propose changes to the members to discuss/approve

So we should discuss Luis' proposal even if it ends up being technically an advisory discussion/vote here and at HYH meetings.

David Lang

[Eric Ose]

Can we please get rid of the arbitrary time requirement altogether. I never saw sufficient reasons provided by the old board who made these changes. Most people seemed to not like the majority of those changes. Changing it to 2 months feels like validating the change as in some way necessary when it really isn't.

Someone can be a volunteer for a decade then have to wait on a card access because of this rule. If someone wants to nominate a member why should we put up barriers to it? Other people will still weigh in with their votes.

If it goes forward as is I'll still vote for it, but I object to the idea that this is necessary or a good idea. It's just less worse than the previous change.

Eric Ose

Robot Ambassador

It's just an idea until there's a date and time included.

--
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/39735847-o19o-590r-9283-rr8nq6o842r7%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

It would be good to see if the old board can chime in here, either publicly (ideally) or privately (if there is sensitive information to share), so that the membership can consider the changes that lead to the abrupt change. I want to assume there's a good faith reason for it and if so that would be extremely useful context when considering this proposal, but I have not seen them.

*taking off my board hat* 

That being said, from what I can tell reading the much ink that was spilled over the original change, it seems to have been done hastily. Personally, I absolutely support changing the rules around this. But I think it would be good to not repeat that mistake and thrash back and forth. Instead, I'd argue that an ad-hoc committee should champion a thorough democratic process of documentation and fact-finding. What are our gaps in the current scheme? Where should it be? How does that compare to past practices and issues? What can we do to improve our membership levels to better align with the values and goals of the organization? Are there other models we should consider? What are other spaces doing and what has worked for them? What have other spaces done that HASN'T worked for them? To make this more concrete - it's been noted that, for instance, at current engagement levels we would very rarely actually meet the quorum requirements for adding new card-members at HYH, so a proposal that doesn't also address that issue is a bit moot IMHO.

Therefore, In my capacity as a member, I would not support a proposal to change the membership rules that does not address these questions. I'll also note that as a board member, however, I do not want to stand in the way of serving the membership and I'm undecided on this specific proposal, pending discussion with the membership and ideally more concrete answers to the concerns I raised in my first paragraph. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEk_gvANoOmz1EUnOQfLuL%3DvaqHQy4AVt%2BeWm8_7iGp9ic3-rw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Luis Montes]

This was simplified during a board meeting.  We vote at HYH for bylaw changes.  There is no other requirement:

https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/8j-YQJp2NPA

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 10:02 AM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:

[Brett Neese]

> We vote at HYH for bylaw changes.  There is no other requirement:

If I'm reading Sheldon's post on that thread correctly, that is not what is in the text of that amendment as passed by the board. My understanding is that bylaws changes should go before the membership for approval at an HYH before they go to a vote to a board, who has final authority. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong; there may also be legal considerations (ie the board has a responsibility to the legal entity, if the membership decides to spend all the lab's money doing something illegal as a 501(c)3 - for example, putting our entire assets behind backing a political candidate, it would be necessary and proper for us to prevent that.)  

It would be ideal if I had the text of the amendment as passed by the previous board so that I can properly update the bylaws in the wiki. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCnxzyWPz-i2%3DY1K0DsG7SkmVL3jSGQXECk1%3DPZXitXtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> This was simplified during a board meeting. We vote at HYH for bylaw
> changes. There is no other requirement:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/8j-YQJp2NPA

are there any other changes to the bylaws that are not in the bylaws page of the
wiki? Or is there some other source of truth for the bylaws?

https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

That was the only thing that the board passed from my proposals to undo the board's bylaw changes.

The main thing is it prevents the board from doing something again like adding a 6 month wait without bringing it to HYH first.

I have no guarantee that the board will actually make the change to strike the 6th month requirement, but we have to assume at least a bit of good faith in these things.   I'd think other members besides myself would take exception to a board deliberately ignoring what HYH votes on.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/9267419q-p626-7o04-q550-5sn053798249%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

Okay, I'm going to try and get the copy as passed by the board and update the bylaws accordingly (assuming I can get someone to unlock my wiki account to edit the bylaws page now that it's locked down lol). 

Personally, I actually think it's a good check against the board's power, and I will say that my approach as a board member has been that we serve at the pleasure of the organization and the organization serves the membership so long as it doesn't put the organization at risk. Which is why, though I'd personally like to see a much more considered proposal (or multiple proposals), I'm inclined to follow what the membership agrees upon. Also important to note here, though, that the fraction of members who attend HYH may not be representative of the views of the whole membership (my immediate response to this is - PLEASE ATTEND HYH SO WE CAN AS MUCH OF THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT AS POSSIBLE. It's a really important democratic resource for the board and the community. Thank you.)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCVnXw_dqQrARB971R3qQ3Je4c%2B5PNBw9B23MprLFiokA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Bushman]

On 11/3/25 12:57, Brett Neese wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong; there may also be legal considerations
> (ie the board has a responsibility to the legal entity, if the
> membership decides to spend all the lab's money doing something illegal
> as a 501(c)3 - for example, putting our entire assets behind backing a
> political candidate, it would be necessary and proper for us to prevent
> that.)

The reason the membership is the final authority on bylaws changes is in
case the board decides to do something illegal; it would be necessary
and proper for the membership vote to prevent it.

[Luis Montes]

I appreciate the openness.

That said, it took zero input to add the 6 month rule.  At least this is a proposal, and I hope we can get a quorum for it.   We currently have at least 3 people that I know of that are very good candidates for card access that are blocked.

We have 10 days to hash this out.  I'm really liking Eric's input on just striking the clause completely, and will probably reword the proposal soon.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4MM3DaMTL1CjOqx_4%2Bjt%3DrKmN918u77rXYr-BvocNNfbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Antonio Contrisciani]

weighing in with my opinion on a few things:

I concur with Luis' assessment of the decision the board made on his previous proposal. Bylaw changes were to become a membership vote thing instead of a board vote thing.

The 6 month requirement and luis proposed 2 month requirements are not intended, I believe, as impediments to a long term volunteer receiving a card but rather an attempt to prevent someone entering the lab and being nominated and receiving a card before they had even gotten to know a lot of the membership or shown value to the lab. If there was no time requirement all that would really be required for card membership would be $50 and to have 4-5 members as friends. If we require that someone is a member for a specific period of time before being eligible it allows time for other members to meet them and make the decision on if that person's card ownership, or preventing that person's card ownership, are important enough to them to attend the appropriate HYH. Before the board implemented the 6 month rule I heard several members opine at HYH and in private that giving out cards had "accelerated" and people were getting cards before they were well known. I personally think requiring someone to be a member for a minimum of 2 months is an elegant solution. To Eric's point  "Someone can be a volunteer for a decade then have to wait on a card access because of this rule" I would ask why a volunteer long decade didn't have a membership, either purchased or scholarship, if they would like to have card access. We have scholarships available if the person is unable or unwilling to meet the $50 requirement.

re: david langs point of "is there some other truth to the bylaws" I dont believe there is, but because of the sometimes murky nature of our bylaws there has been a history of changes being made in spirit but being missed in places in the bylaws. I recall. to the above point. card access was written in I believe like 3-4 places in the bylaws with conflicting information. When the board changed the bylaws, they attempted to update and remove redundancies but who knows if there were all caught. It's a living document that's been altered and massaged and tweaked for a decade, there's bound to be all sorts of spots that need a review.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 1:44 PM Brett Neese <br...@neese.rocks> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4MM3DaMTL1CjOqx_4%2Bjt%3DrKmN918u77rXYr-BvocNNfbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2025, Luis Montes wrote:

> I appreciate the openness.
> That said, it took zero input to add the 6 month rule. At least this is a
> proposal, and I hope we can get a quorum for it. We currently have at
> least 3 people that I know of that are very good candidates for card access
> that are blocked.
>
> We have 10 days to hash this out. I'm really liking Eric's input on just
> striking the clause completely, and will probably reword the proposal soon.

unless there are other changes to the bylaws I'm not aware of, we have 5+ weeks
(until the first HYH in December)

The proposal cannot be voted on for 30 days after it's raised, and needs to be
fixed a week before the vote.


personally, I don't like either waiting time or the rate limiting on
nominations, and I expect that I would benefit from them being eliminated, but
as a board member, I need to make sure we are following our rules to remove
these, even if the limits were not put in place following the same rules.

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCVnXw_dqQrARB971R3qQ3Je4c%2B5PNBw9B23MprLFiokA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCVnXw_dqQrARB971R3qQ3Je4c%2B5PNBw9B23MprLFiokA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CALOuO4MM3DaMTL1CjOqx_4%2Bjt%3DrKmN918u77rXYr-BvocNNfbA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4MM3DaMTL1CjOqx_4%2Bjt%3DrKmN918u77rXYr-BvocNNfbA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[David Lang]

Antonio Contrisciani:

> I concur with Luis' assessment of the decision the board made on his
> previous proposal. Bylaw changes were to become a membership vote thing
> instead of a board vote thing.

I think that both should be needed (proposed by the board and then validated by
the membership, or proposed by the membership and then validated by the board)

> The 6 month requirement and luis proposed 2 month requirements are not
> intended, I believe, as impediments to a long term volunteer receiving a
> card but rather an attempt to prevent someone entering the lab and being
> nominated and receiving a card before they had even gotten to know a lot of
> the membership or shown value to the lab. If there was no time
> requirement all that would really be required for card membership would be
> $50 and to have 4-5 members as friends.

the bylaws require a quorum of 5 cardholders be at a HYH to voe, and if 3 of the
5 vote in favor of the candidate, they get a card (unless the board takes their
card away, and what happens if the board and members disagree on someone is not
defined)

> If we require that someone is a
> member for a specific period of time before being eligible it allows time
> for other members to meet them and make the decision on if that person's
> card ownership, or preventing that person's card ownership, are important
> enough to them to attend the appropriate HYH. Before the board implemented
> the 6 month rule I heard several members opine at HYH and in private that
> giving out cards had "accelerated" and people were getting cards before
> they were well known.

currently we have ~115 members, of which ~77 are cardholders. This is an
extrodinarily high percentage in my experience with other makerspaces

> I personally think requiring someone to be a member
> for a minimum of 2 months is an elegant solution. To Eric's point "Someone
> can be a volunteer for a decade then have to wait on a card access because
> of this rule" I would ask why a volunteer long decade didn't have a
> membership, either purchased or scholarship, if they would like to have
> card access. We have scholarships available if the person is unable or
> unwilling to meet the $50 requirement.

Cardholders are being given quite a bit of trust. They could go in after hours
and empty the place with nobody being the wiser (including taking the security
cameras and recordings), it makes sense to have more than 3-4 people know who
they are first.

a waiting time is one possible approach, ensuring that there is a larger quorum
needed to approve them in another (not mutually exclusive)


The board has started tossing around ideas for how to do voting outside of
in-person HYH meetings, how to prevent it from devolving into too many potential
voters so there is never a quorum, how to keep people who never show up from
preventing anything from being done, etc (OpenWRT has had this problem and are
in the middle of a vote to try and change this, this is their 3rd or so
iteration of trying to change it and the rules get simpler each time, they are
getting close to being functional) I want to get a bit more feedback from the
board before I start tossing the ideas out in public.

> re: david langs point of "is there some other truth to the bylaws" I
> dont believe there is, but because of the sometimes murky nature of our
> bylaws there has been a history of changes being made in spirit but being
> missed in places in the bylaws. I recall. to the above point. card access
> was written in I believe like 3-4 places in the bylaws with conflicting
> information. When the board changed the bylaws, they attempted to update
> and remove redundancies but who knows if there were all caught. It's a
> living document that's been altered and massaged and tweaked for a decade,
> there's bound to be all sorts of spots that need a review.

I just went through the bylaws (looking at them and proposing revisions and/or
cleanups is on the board to-do list, and as a board member, I need to know what
the rules are) and there is very little redundency. the ammendment clause in the
bylaws is exactly what I posted earlier, so once I was told that the rules had
been changed, my natural reaction is 'am I looking the wrong place' and 'if this
change got missed, what else got missed'

Earlier today I posted a lengthy message to the board on my review of the bylaws
and what I think should be looked at.

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCVnXw_dqQrARB971R3qQ3Je4c%2B5PNBw9B23MprLFiokA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdCVnXw_dqQrARB971R3qQ3Je4c%2B5PNBw9B23MprLFiokA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CALOuO4MM3DaMTL1CjOqx_4%2Bjt%3DrKmN918u77rXYr-BvocNNfbA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4MM3DaMTL1CjOqx_4%2Bjt%3DrKmN918u77rXYr-BvocNNfbA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Luis Montes]

Ugh, you're right:  https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/0ASWjLg9nTc/m/AeDPc4gzFgAJ

I hope this at least demonstrates what an absolute mess having bylaw changes made without the buy-in of the rest of the members is.

Now I have to go and make that a proposal again.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/00ro25n2-5183-p35q-p768-6036s2855q76%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> Ugh, you're right:
> https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/0ASWjLg9nTc/m/AeDPc4gzFgAJ
>
> I hope this at least demonstrates what an absolute mess having bylaw
> changes made without the buy-in of the rest of the members is.
>
> Now I have to go and make that a proposal again.

do we want to do a lot of separate proposals for individual changes? or should
we try to put together a more comprehensive proposal and do it as one big
cleanup?

[Luis Montes]

I'd rather not lump everything in, so I'm keeping my two separate at least.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/r8n37qs1-0r44-005p-5on3-4s882905574n%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

> I hope this at least demonstrates what an absolute mess having bylaw changes made without the buy-in of the rest of the members is.

Doesn't this actually demonstrate why it's important that proposals that affect the bylaws are thorough, well-organized and thoughtfully considered? The original change seems to have been done hastfully, and now we're in a similar situation. I'd really like us to not repeat those mistakes. Changing the bylaws should be a slow process with multi-stakeholder engagement. 

We're also in a situation where I can't update the bylaws to reflect your last proposal (requiring a membership vote) because the language is so vague that it's unclear what the board even agreed on.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC_dUiSZayTo49wCcRHGQF50JLod9Y5NbUVeEUYnfq%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Hickey]

My .02 is that the card proposal process is awful, and we need a real checklist or set of requirements for someone to get the cardholder status.

With the metric being, other cardholders think they're cool and have chill vibes leaves a lot to be desired. The nebulous requirement of "being a part of the community" ends up with people just not wanting to go through invisible hoops. 

I have talked to a few people who have expressed this after visiting the lab.

The big carrot for the $50 membership is the potential for card access, let's make it transparent and measurable.

We need ways to streamline granting access and removing it, not more barriers.

Paul Hickey

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC_dUiSZayTo49wCcRHGQF50JLod9Y5NbUVeEUYnfq%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Paul Hickey wrote:

> We need ways to streamline granting access and removing it, not more
> barriers.

This proposal is to streamline granting access.

The current rules are

1. you must have been a $50 member for 6 months

This proposal is to reduce this to 2 months or no limit

2. you must be sponsored by an existing cardholder at least 2 weeks before a HYH

3. a given cardholder can only nominate one person a year.

4. at the HYH, your sponsor introduces you (it doesn't say that you must be
there, but your sponsor must)

5. at least 5 cardholders must be there, and the majority must vote for the new
cardholder.

I would assume vote counting would be the same as is described for proposals, so
if 2 of the 5 abstain, 2 votes could grant cardholder status


To remove access requires a vote of the Board or the member stop paying (it does
also say a code of conduct violation, but since that's decided by the board,
it's a board vote)

David Lang

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC_dUiSZayTo49wCcRHGQF50JLod9Y5NbUVeEUYnfq%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC_dUiSZayTo49wCcRHGQF50JLod9Y5NbUVeEUYnfq%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Nate Caine]

There currently are 55 Cards Activated.

[David Lang]

Nate Caine wrote:

> There currently are *55 *Cards Activated.

Thank you, the spreadsheet that was provided to the board said 77

David Lang

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC_dUiSZayTo49wCcRHGQF50JLod9Y5NbUVeEUYnfq%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC_dUiSZayTo49wCcRHGQF50JLod9Y5NbUVeEUYnfq%3DuQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>
>

[David Lang]

while there is disagreement on other threads about when and how this change to
the bylaws should happen, let's have more discussion on what members think of
the details of the proposal.

> Paul Hickey wrote:
>
>> We need ways to streamline granting access and removing it, not more barriers.

This proposal is to streamline granting access.

The current rules are

1. you must have been a $50 member for 6 months

The proposal by Luis is to reduce this to 2 months
Eric Ose would eliminate the waiting time entirely

2. you must be sponsored by an existing cardholder at least 2 weeks before a HYH

3. a given cardholder can only nominate one person a year.

David Lang would change this, but does not have a isolated proposal for it yet.

[Paul Hickey]

I'm a fan of most these changes and appreciate the efforts.

For the nominate 1 person per year. Seems silly when they're still voted in. There shouldn't be a limit. 

A vote that actually grants access should be majority of card holders voting in the affirmative, not a plurality. So in your example at least 3 yes.

This still doesn't address the opaque goalposts for candidates.

Love the work on this by the crew btw.

Paul Hickey

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/ss4nqsr8-63so-27p7-11s3-q95p0665qn7p%40ynat.uz.

[Jay McGavren]

Disclosure: I am currently in the 6-month waiting period for card access and would personally benefit from a reduction in the waiting time.

> 1. you must have been a $50 member for 6 months

> This proposal is to reduce this to 2 months or no limit

I think 6 months is too long a wait. I'm able to help the lab out now, and yet I find myself needing to wait another 5 months. Multiply the effect for me by at least 2 other people who are also having to wait currently. Then multiply it further for some unknown future number of potential cardholders.

That said, I am not suggesting "no limit", for 2 reasons:

A. I think a limit of 2-3 months is more likely to pass a vote than "no limit".

B. I do think the limit provides a protective measure against untrustworthy individuals rapidly getting card access.

> 5. at least 5 cardholders must be there, and the majority must vote for the new
> cardholder.

This is a bar we will rarely, if ever, meet. If this is not changed, then my assumption is *I will NEVER have card access*.

And while I am okay with keeping my $50-per-month subscription just because it benefits the lab, I have to assume that would affect membership decisions for others.

-Jay

[Rick Blake]

Jay, I don't know you well enough to say yes or no, but when I find out you're up for card holder status I will want to meet you even if it's at that meeting. But we can generally muster at least five card holders at an hyh, especially a Thursday. We should be able to meet that on a regular basis. You should also read through the thread, to understand that card holder status often reflects a level of trust and approval of a member. It doesn't necessarily reflect their ability to be of benefit, or to be helpful to the lab. How full is very good, and we're not going to turn down people as members who can do good things, but that's not to me and important criteria for card holder status. Nonetheless and, I think that we should have some minimal tenure for a member to become a card holder. We can discuss what that is, and indeed we are. But I do think 6 months is too long.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/278ded4c-3606-4f3c-9e2b-add3ebc2ea4dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Brett Neese]

Since I've started keeping HYH notes in September and noting the card members present (this is not always tallied but I will insist on it in the future) from what I can tell we have hit that quorum exactly once, during election night in October (maybe twice if you include the people Cpro rallied for his 3d printer proposal - card member census was not taken at that time.)

Speaking in my personal capacity and my experience with spaces in the past, I will also note that having dissenters dissent in public may make people less likely to dissent and/or succumb to peer pressure and/or encourage bullying, which seems less than ideal to me. 

That being said, I'm very much of the opinion that 6 months is too long, especially when you combine it with the lackluster attendance at HYH (please, please, please, try to come to HYH - but ideally if you can't make it we still have opportunities to have your voice heard, and I'm interested in suggestions on how to make this happen in seperate threads or 1:1.)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_eyMRw_f73jLCgcVvFHay%3Dbqao2xRdjv8TFGh6j%3DGkXHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

going off on a bit of a tangent here (and without my board hat on), my thinking
for the right thing to do long term for cardholder votes is to hold votes online
and over time so that we can get more participation. Not everyone's
family/work schedule is going to allow them to get in to vote on a particular
day (especially when the there is a fair chance of quorum not being met, so
the particular day isn't known).

My inspiration for this is the OpenWRT project and how they hold votes (and the
problems they have had getting quorum)



to do this requires some balancing to determine what a quorum should be.

Not everyone who is a cardholder is going to vote, some cardholders are very
inactive (we don't want to disturb such people, the represent free money and if
we push them too much, they will just go away. We want to encourage them to come
back, but not pester them).

One problem OpenWRT has had is a definition of quorum based on total
membership being so high that only extrodinary issues attract enough votes to
meet the quorum.

So, any quorum that's defined needs to not be based on the total number of
cardholders, but on some lower number of 'active cardholders'. My intital
strawman for this would be to define 'active cardholders' as anyone who has
scanned their badge in the last 6 months or logged in to our infrastructure /
member site (they can be a very active, supporting member who does a lot of work
remotely).

Initially we can set the quorum to something low (I'm thinking something that
with our current participation would result in a quorum of 10 or so) and then
consider adjusting it in the future once we see what the participation looks
like.

Voting could take place over a couple of weeks (with reminders out to the list
and a slack channel that there is a vote going on and the current status,
pro/con/abstain counts and a list of who hass votedevery day or two.)

Votes could be placed via email if we want them to be done in public, or via the
member site if we want secret ballots

Discussion of the candidate can take place on the mailing list (but the
candidate should meet with other cardholders in person, either at a HYH or on
other days. We can use the member website to allow for anomyous messages to be
posted (posts that are known to come from cardholders, just not which one)

At that point, current rules (a majority of those who don't vote "abstain" is
required to approve the cardholder)


If we were to go down this path, we could do something similar for other
proposals. I would like to see something like this for bylaw changes in
particular.

(the vote not limited to the cardholders, but the quorum based on the number of
'active cardholders' possibly with a larger percentage required since we can't
know how many members are active)

David Lang

>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/278ded4c-3606-4f3c-9e2b-add3ebc2ea4dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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_eyMRw_f73jLCgcVvFHay%3Dbqao2xRdjv8TFGh6j%3DGkXHg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_eyMRw_f73jLCgcVvFHay%3Dbqao2xRdjv8TFGh6j%3DGkXHg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Nate Caine]

Summary:  6-months may be too long, but 2 months is definitely too short.  I would vote for 4-months.

As is typically HeatSync, we've always had only vague and weak criteria for Card Access.
That has hurt us, and its been a disservice to those trying to navigate the process.
As stated, Card Access is an earned privilege, not an expectation, and certainly not available to be purchased.

Over time we've had enough examples of abuse, and I guess the Board was attempting to address some of these flaws.

(During COVID reasonable requirements to be awarded Card Access somewhat went out the window.
In hindsight, perhaps those cards should been granted conditionally; subject to later review.)


Wait Period:
The 6-month wait might be too long, but I've thought 4 or 5 months was a reasonable enough time for a nominee to interact with other members and card-holders.
          (In the distant past, I know of one candidate, that thought that he--himself--was, was being too-quickly nominated, and withdrew for a few months and was later re-nominated.  
        That showed character and insight, and during the years he was at HeatSync he was an asset to the community.)

On the opposite end, I've seen candidates nominated in just 1 or 2 months, and that seems predicated more on currying favor, or cronyism or false loyalty, than instead  based on character or commitment.  
Why are they on the "fast-track"?  Many members are here for years, then at some point, as they up their interests or participations, become good candidates for Card Access.

The process, now, has devolved into how quickly can a new member get to the Card Access endpoint.

We've seen too many granted card access too quickly and "aspirationally".
That is, we "hope" they will grow into the expected roles of mentorship, participation, hosting, and working on projects and events aligned with HeatSync's mission.

A few months is too short.  There's little opportunity to see candidates interact with the public, do some co-hosting, tours, etc.  
          (Indeed, one member claimed to be a co-host for months, but the actual host had never met the person.)
I'd like to see candidates at HYH and get calibrated on their input and ideas, and willingness to help clean up and maintain the space.
         (Given our convoluted HYH schedule, I might only see them once each month.  Two times is too few.)
Indeed, several candidates have ONLY appeared at HYH when their Card Access was up for a vote.
Once they gain card access, it's a 24/7 pass to do as they please as  "just another user" of the space, and not a "member of the community".
That is a detriment, and not what rewarding of Card Access was intended to be.

          (One member used after-hours Card Access to abuse the laser, cutting banned materials.  Or leaving the building while laser was actively cutting parts.)

Instead, I'd rather say I have actually seen:

• The candidate in action for several months.  
• They've been helpful co-hosting on several occasions, and have given knowledgeable tours and answered questions well.
• They're are doing projects related to our mission.
• They are helpful and mentor others.  
• They have regularly attended HYH with insightful comments, and help with clean-up and lab up-keep.

Money:
Financially, Card Access is predicated on maintaining a $50 membership (or above).  This has been badly abused.
Many members seem to drop their payments after being granted card access.
What's more, some have even bragged about this:  '"just pay $50 and then drop it, they never check".
Some have instructed others how to do the same.

Previously, nominees were expected to be at $50 during the waiting period.  
Instead there have been many examples of upping membership to $50 just one month before Card Access vote.
In the past, the Treasurer would verify the individual was "a member in good standing" and been at $50 for several months.
Sadly, more recently we've had those sponsoring candidates make misleading claims about a candidates payment status.  
And even incorrect claims of how long a candidate has been a member (claiming years when a few months was more accurate.)


Sponsorship:
One way to combat some abuses is to limit any Card Holder to only a single Card Holder nomination each year.
Certainly a good candidate will not have any problem finding a sponsor, (even if their preferred sponsor has already used their allotment.)

[Jay McGavren]

I'm glad to have specific examples of what has gone wrong in the past. That helps inform decisions WAY better than anything else.

(I do understand why people are often reluctant to go into specifics, as I'm sure some people can view it as being called out.)

I have a couple suggestions in mind that might open card access to more people while also requiring demonstration of trustworthiness. But doing it right would involve a holistic (draft) rewrite of the "Card Access" section. I'll put together a Google Doc and share it soon.

-Jay

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/heatsynclabs/lCr3gXtrE-A/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/120465ac-e414-46af-a3e6-77a1e3281ea4n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

Nate Caine wrote:

> *Money:*

> Financially, Card Access is predicated on maintaining a $50 membership (or
> above). This has been badly abused.
> Many members seem to drop their payments after being granted card access.
> What's more, some have even bragged about this: '"just pay $50 and then
> drop it, they never check".
> Some have instructed others how to do the same.
>
> Previously, nominees were expected to be at $50 during the waiting period.
> Instead there have been many examples of upping membership to $50 just one
> month before Card Access vote.
> In the past, the Treasurer would verify the individual was "a member in
> good standing" and been at $50 for several months.
> Sadly, more recently we've had those sponsoring candidates make misleading
> claims about a candidates payment status.
> And even incorrect claims of how long a candidate has been a member
> (claiming years when a few months was more accurate.)

This is the only makerspace that I've seen where being granted cardholder status
doesn't come with extra costs. This doesn't mean you can just pay the fee and
get the card/key, but that when you are granted the card/key you not have to pay
an additional fee.

In some cases this has been a drastic increase (from $40/m to $250/m), I think
for HSL something like $25/m with a $6 discount for each day they host during
the month would be reasonable.

some people say that the only reason to pay the $50/m membership is to be able
to become a cardholder, but the storage box for your projects is supposed to be
the benefit of the $50 membership

David Lang

[Brett Neese]

I think 3 or 4 months is much more reasonable and I’d be more than happy to enthusiastically support that, perhaps even without limiting the number of nominees someone can sponsor per year (if this becomes abused, card members always have the right to vote down a potential cardmember due to sponsor abuse.)

Brett

[Jay McGavren]

DISCLOSURE (again): I wish to become a cardholder and would personally benefit from changes to card access rules.

I wrote previously:

> I have a couple suggestions in mind that might open card access to more
> people while also requiring demonstration of trustworthiness. But doing it
> right would involve a holistic (draft) rewrite of the "Card Access" section.

Here is that draft:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ebvnKCWCh2boeFhEWW_yOKE1gbK0b9xUBwTPwVa0SA0/edit?usp=sharing

The text is copied from https://wiki.heatsynclabs.org/wiki/Bylaws#CARD_ACCESS . I have made Google Docs "suggested edits" with my proposed changes. I ask that the edits be considered individually, not as all-or-nothing. They could be split into separate proposals if desired.

Please leave your comments on the Google Doc for now, and I'll refine the content. (Possibly by creating additional doc(s).) Once it's closer to acceptable by the group, we can move discussion to this list. If you are unable or unwilling to access Google Docs, please let me know, and I'll figure out how to post the draft direct to the list.

[Eric Ose]

We have enough barriers to card access. It is easier to become a board member than it is to become a cardholder. It has now happened 4 times.

I think Paul was right that things need to be more clear on how to become a card holder. There is merit to improving documentation and clarity on what is expected or preferred for the card nomination process. I think the need to add specific hard rules to follow is over hyped.

Yeah x months of membership looks like it doesn't create problems, but if someone pays for over a year, then has a gap one month outside their control. Not the labs problem! Pay us! A returning member who was away gets to sit in the back seat while wanting to be helpful but can't.

We already do a good job preventing people from getting card access.

Eric Ose

Robot Ambassador

It's just an idea until there's a date and time included.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/518f4429-6224-4e8c-9aca-48891426d030n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

we know that we have people who are deliberatly trying to short us and are
instructing others on how to short us.

How can we tell the difference between a gap outside of their control and a gap
within their control?

I recognize that things happen when automated payments are in play, and I think
the answer is that the person should pay the gap time as well if it's an
accidental gap

David Lang

On Fri, 14 Nov 2025, Eric Ose wrote:

> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:46:19 -0700
> From: Eric Ose <eric...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: HSL Google Group <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [HSL] PROPOSAL: update card access requirements in bylaws.

>
> We have enough barriers to card access. It is easier to become a board
> member than it is to become a cardholder. It has now happened 4 times.
>
> I think Paul was right that things need to be more clear on how to become a
> card holder. There is merit to improving documentation and clarity on what
> is expected or preferred for the card nomination process. I think the need
> to add specific hard rules to follow is over hyped.
>
> Yeah x months of membership looks like it doesn't create problems, but if
> someone pays for over a year, then has a gap one month outside their
> control. Not the labs problem! Pay us! A returning member who was away gets
> to sit in the back seat while wanting to be helpful but can't.
>
> We already do a good job preventing people from getting card access.
>
> Eric Ose

> Robot Ambassador <https://www.azrobotambassador.com/>

>>>> *Summary:* 6-months may be too long, but 2 months is definitely too

>>>> short. I would vote for 4-months.
>>>>
>>>> As is typically HeatSync, we've always had only vague and weak criteria
>>>> for Card Access.
>>>> That has hurt us, and its been a disservice to those trying to navigate
>>>> the process.
>>>> As stated, Card Access is an earned privilege, not an expectation, and
>>>> certainly not available to be purchased.
>>>>
>>>> Over time we've had enough examples of abuse, and I guess the Board was
>>>> attempting to address some of these flaws.
>>>>
>>>> (During COVID reasonable requirements to be awarded Card Access somewhat
>>>> went out the window.
>>>> In hindsight, perhaps those cards should been granted conditionally;
>>>> subject to later review.)
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> *Wait Period: *

>>>> The 6-month wait might be too long, but I've thought 4 or 5 months was a
>>>> reasonable enough time for a nominee to interact with other members and
>>>> card-holders.
>>>>

>>>> * (In the distant past, I know of one candidate, that thought that

>>>> he--himself--was, was being too-quickly nominated, and withdrew for a few
>>>> months and was later re-nominated. That showed character and
>>>> insight, and during the years he was at HeatSync he was an asset to the

>>>> community.)*

>>>>
>>>> On the opposite end, I've seen candidates nominated in just 1 or 2
>>>> months, and that seems predicated more on currying favor, or cronyism or
>>>> false loyalty, than instead based on character or commitment.
>>>> Why are they on the "fast-track"? Many members are here for years, then
>>>> at some point, as they up their interests or participations, become good
>>>> candidates for Card Access.
>>>>
>>>> The process, now, has devolved into how quickly can a new member get to
>>>> the Card Access endpoint.
>>>>
>>>> We've seen too many granted card access too quickly and "aspirationally".

>>>> That is, we "*hope*" they will grow into the expected roles of

>>>> mentorship, participation, hosting, and working on projects and events
>>>> aligned with HeatSync's mission.
>>>>
>>>> A few months is too short. There's little opportunity to see candidates
>>>> interact with the public, do some co-hosting, tours, etc.

>>>> * (Indeed, one member claimed to be a co-host for months, but
>>>> the actual host had never met the person.)*

>>>> I'd like to see candidates at HYH and get calibrated on their input and
>>>> ideas, and willingness to help clean up and maintain the space.

>>>> * (Given our convoluted HYH schedule, I might only see them
>>>> once each month. Two times is too few.)*
>>>> Indeed, several candidates have *ONLY *appeared at HYH when their Card

>>>> Access was up for a vote.
>>>> Once they gain card access, it's a 24/7 pass to do as they please as

>>>> "just another user" of the space, and *not *a "member of the

>>>> community".
>>>> That is a detriment, and not what rewarding of Card Access was intended
>>>> to be.
>>>>

>>>> * (One member used after-hours Card Access to abuse the laser,

>>>> cutting banned materials. Or leaving the building while laser was actively

>>>> cutting parts.)*
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I'd rather say I have *actually seen*:
>>>>
>>>> - The candidate in action for several months.
>>>> - They've been helpful co-hosting on several occasions, and have

>>>> given knowledgeable tours and answered questions well.

>>>> - They're are doing projects related to our mission.
>>>> - They are helpful and mentor others.
>>>> - They have regularly attended HYH with insightful comments, and

>>>> help with clean-up and lab up-keep.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> *Money:*

>>>> Financially, Card Access is predicated on maintaining a $50 membership
>>>> (or above). This has been badly abused.
>>>> Many members seem to drop their payments after being granted card access.
>>>> What's more, some have even bragged about this: '"just pay $50 and then
>>>> drop it, they never check".
>>>> Some have instructed others how to do the same.
>>>>
>>>> Previously, nominees were expected to be at $50 during the waiting
>>>> period.
>>>> Instead there have been many examples of upping membership to $50 just
>>>> one month before Card Access vote.
>>>> In the past, the Treasurer would verify the individual was "a member in
>>>> good standing" and been at $50 for several months.
>>>> Sadly, more recently we've had those sponsoring candidates make
>>>> misleading claims about a candidates payment status.
>>>> And even incorrect claims of how long a candidate has been a member
>>>> (claiming years when a few months was more accurate.)
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> *Sponsorship:*

>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/120465ac-e414-46af-a3e6-77a1e3281ea4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>> 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/518f4429-6224-4e8c-9aca-48891426d030n%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/518f4429-6224-4e8c-9aca-48891426d030n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Eric Ose]

Applying restrictions to everyone instead of addressing the people who are causing the problems is a long tradition in the lab. It is not a good one. If some people are not behaving as they should then address that with them. Don't take it out on everyone else and don't start adding more rules.

All the people over the years that which were told basic members are eligible for card access now have incorrect information. It feels like a marketing copy with an asterisk saying terms and conditions apply. We could have a list of guidelines for proposing cardholders without making them hard rules. Then it wouldn't conflict with the information we have said about HeatSync Labs for years.

 

Eric Ose

Robot Ambassador

It's just an idea until there's a date and time included.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/nn2n68n2-n70p-nsq6-9n74-43pq88s1p075%40ynat.uz.

[Luis Montes]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 1:34 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:

we know that we have people who are deliberatly trying to short us and are
instructing others on how to short us.

This is completely unacceptable.  If I understand correctly, you are saying that you know of people that are deliberately not paying and instructing others to not pay their memberships?

This should be handled immediately without even waiting for a bylaw change.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/nn2n68n2-n70p-nsq6-9n74-43pq88s1p075%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 1:34 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> we know that we have people who are deliberatly trying to short us and are
>> instructing others on how to short us.
>>
>
>
> This is completely unacceptable. If I understand correctly, you are saying
> that you know of people that are deliberately not paying and instructing
> others to not pay their memberships?

I've heard others report overhearing members instructing others that 'they (HSL)
never check' and that they bump their membership to $50, get a card, then drop
it down to $25.

> This should be handled immediately without even waiting for a bylaw change.

right now, we don't track payments well enough to know what's what. Fixing this
is pretty high on our priority list.

David Lang

[Brett Neese]

I understand the importance of honoring tradition and culture but it’s also critical that the organization adapt to new challenges. We’re quite a bit bigger than we were in the past and have faced numerous novel challenges since the pandemic and especially in the past year. We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there haven’t been material changes to address (we also have evidence of abuse of ‘the old ways’ that were not conducive to the prospering of the lab.) 

While the old board may have violated norms and gone overboard, I have every reason to believe they acted in good faith when tightening the rules. Hackers are going to find every way to abuse the system, we have to put some guardrails into place to ensure the viability of the lab moving forward. 

I’d personally like to see 3 months, and that’s what the straw poll in the slack indicated most would prefer, but I’m not going to pull tyranny of small differences on this one. And there are always many ways to solve the same problem, I’m interested in hearing novel solutions. I think it would be a good idea for those interested to review the bylaws as a whole with input from the board but that is not something the board should direct nor do all members need to be involved in although it should be open and transparent for those who are interested.

In the meantime we need to work on doing things that actually help the lab flourish. The never ending debate about bylaws is not one of those things, we have evidence that people are disengaging from the lab due to all this drama. That’s not good.

Brett

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/5p6qo1q4-nrq5-3q91-oq94-645s8sq4r64p%40ynat.uz.

[Eric Ose]

Lang,

I'm glad the board is looking into payment options etc. I agree with Luis that if people are abusing the system this should be directly looked into.

The idea that tracking payments hasn't been easy in the past is a bit confusing. Paypal sends an email to the board when people cancel their membership. I always found that easy to notice.

With the additional payment options it get harder to stay on top of.

Eric Ose
Robot Ambassador

Sometimes cool things just happen, but usually you have to plan them.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4NiYoRjW5XRNN_xGPVQfs1dbLPKaPvgfpiPF%3DAGqmSyag%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Eric Ose wrote:

> I'm glad the board is looking into payment options etc. I agree with Luis
> that if people are abusing the system this should be directly looked into.
>
> The idea that tracking payments hasn't been easy in the past is a bit
> confusing. Paypal sends an email to the board when people cancel their
> membership. I always found that easy to notice.
>
> With the additional payment options it get harder to stay on top of.

As I understnad it, the usual thing isn't stopping payment entirely, but rather
boosting to the $50 level long enough to get their card, then dropping back to
the 25 level. I haven't been part of or overheard the conversations, so you are
getting it from me third/fourth hand.

David Lang

[Nate Caine]

I've waded thru enough of the comments, and will be voting "NO".
(I would vote for a reasonable compromise of at least 4 months.)

We recently had significant problems with a member who was also proposed for Card Access.
Had the 2-month limit been active, that person would have received a card and be now wreaking havoc on the lab.

=============================

Recently, while checking back on  different topic, I stumbled across an old HeatSync link on a similar topic.

Past member, Rick Osgood, relates how Eugene Maker Space handles card access.

They had a three-prong approach:

• waiting period
• 3 key-holding members to sponsor you
• board approval (or override)

https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/OZbHqGIG1N4/m/PA_sgtwOA1sJ

Rick Osgood

Mar 2, 2012, 4:44:56 PM

to HeatSync Labs

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

[Luis Montes]

Why would that member have automatically received a card?  We would still have to vote on the person.

Anyone can vote no if they don't think the person has been a paying member long enough, whatever that duration is.

--

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/ce392252-ef78-4c38-980e-a62e98114cbcn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> Why would that member have automatically received a card? We would still
> have to vote on the person.
>
> Anyone can vote no if they don't think the person has been a paying member
> long enough, whatever that duration is.

this is why I think a wider voting base is the real answer

but with a very short time before they are voted on (either official restriction
or unofficial expectation) do we have enough time to know the members before
they become cardholders?

David Lang

>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 11:00 AM Nate Caine <nate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> I've waded thru enough of the comments, and will be* voting "NO".*
>> (I *would *vote for a reasonable *compromise *of *at least 4 months*.)
>>
>> We recently had *significant *problems with a member who was also

>> proposed for Card Access.
>> Had the 2-month limit been active, that person would have received a card

>> and be now *wreaking havoc on the lab*.
>>
>> =============================
>>
>> *Recently, while checking back on different topic, I stumbled across an
>> old HeatSync link on a similar topic.*
>>
>> Past member, Rick Osgood, relates how *Eugene Maker Space* handles card

>> access.
>>
>> They had a three-prong approach:
>>

>> - waiting period
>> - 3 key-holding members to sponsor you
>> - board approval (or override)

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/ce392252-ef78-4c38-980e-a62e98114cbcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Luis Montes]

you can always abstain from voting if you don't spend enough time at the lab to meet the newer people.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/65n730o4-73p2-pqq6-5r7n-s8o82po1pqpn%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

My understanding is that the counterintuitive way our bylaws define abstain doing so effectively counts as a yes vote.

Brett

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdC8K0Ea%2Bo8oRVStvM03Cq22JAxh6yoROm9bf6zOnXrJUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeff Sittler]

On Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 11:07:15 AM UTC-7 monteslu wrote:

Why would that member have automatically received a card?  We would still have to vote on the person.

Anyone can vote no if they don't think the person has been a paying member long enough, whatever that duration is.

When was the last time a proposal for card access was voted down?  I don't recall any in the past several years.  Please educate me. 

[Tim M]

Paying members used to automatically receive badge access to the lab. 

Regards,

Tim Moffat

---

From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jeff Sittler <mindb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 1:25:51 PM
To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [HSL] PROPOSAL: update card access requirements in bylaws.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/98cbcbc8-6323-4f7d-b5a8-79ef322b0faan%40googlegroups.com.

[Rick Blake]

I never heard of such a thing.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/SA2PR02MB77721B526519BC9B1271B302ACD5A%40SA2PR02MB7772.namprd02.prod.outlook.com.

[David Lang]

Rick Blake wrote:

> I never heard of such a thing.
>

> Tim M wrote:
>
>> Paying members used to automatically receive badge access to the lab.

I know I've heard long-term members say in the last month that the reason to pay
the $50 membership is to get a card.

personally, I think anyone with a card should either pay an extra $25/month
above their normal membership, or host for X days a month. But I'm not proposing
that at this time :-) This is the only hackerspace I've seen where getting 24
hour access doesn't have any additional cost.

David Lang

[Tim M]

$25 was the minimum to be a member, $50 was the minimum to get card access, and $100 for a locker. Has this not stayed the same since we moved to Mesa?

Without legal protections, you should not force members to host. 

Regards,

Tim Moffat

---

From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Lang <da...@lang.hm>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 1:47:29 PM
To: Heatsync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [HSL] PROPOSAL: update card access requirements in bylaws.

--
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/s07q56o9-404q-58r8-no3n-1snr35pn58rp%40ynat.uz.

[Rick Blake]

$50 membership is a precondition to be nominated for card access. I was a $50 member before I was nominated by Shaundra for card accessed years and years ago. I became a member to financially support the lab, and it did not occur to me to be a cardholder. In fact, she didn't actually ask me if I wanted to be one, she told me she was nominating me. And I did not resist. I never recall of card access being granted because someone paid $50 a month for membership. By the way, $50 also gets you a box to store things in. No lock, just cardboard.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/SA2PR02MB777275A667C5470EADC5757FACD5A%40SA2PR02MB7772.namprd02.prod.outlook.com.

[Tim M]

Was stating when we moved to our first location in Mesa. When  tools started getting stolen, we switched it to a nomination system. $50 did get you a bankers box, and we got the 6 tall lockers for higher paying members($100+)

Regards,

Tim Moffat

---

From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com <heatsy...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rick Blake <rick...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 1:56:24 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_fVjbQDy-zhTyQk51aGZET03VUnDjh_DmtYPOB56RYvTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Tim M wrote:

> $25 was the minimum to be a member, $50 was the minimum to get card access,
> and $100 for a locker. Has this not stayed the same since we moved to Mesa?

I don't know how long that has been the rule, but viewing $50 to be the level
for card access rather than $50 being the level to get a storage box is an
attitude that I've been hearing

> Without legal protections, you should not force members to host.

should we be giving cards to people we don't trust to host?

David Lang

[Rick Blake]

Quite a long time before I knew about the lab. I don't think we're going back to that. Are we?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/SA2PR02MB7772F4AC657A631FBE522CE1ACD5A%40SA2PR02MB7772.namprd02.prod.outlook.com.

[Brett Neese]

You would hope that over time the organization can learn from its mistakes and adapt to new challenges :)

At the very least, it’s also the case that $50 is not $50 anymore.

Brett

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALSEc_dk7wByoazzt8u6HbK22cg3ugx5%2Bed6vrNtEiLgGn6G%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.