PROPOSAL: Only people with card access can vote on granting card access

[Chad Stearns]

PROPOSAL: Only people with card access can vote on granting card access

      -In addition, there must be at least 6 card holding members voting on card access proposals. If there are not 6 card holding members at the HYH, then the proposal is tabled until the next HYH.

-Chad "Excellent-proposals" Stearns

[Nate Plamondon]

I strongly second this. It makes no sense for "untrusted"* members to be handing out keys.

* Here, "untrusted" only refers to not explicitly trusting someone with doors.
--
Nate Plamondon
Sent from a tiny on-screen keyboard

--
 
 

[Luis Montes]

Can we get a special handshake, and fez hats too?

--
 
 

[Will Bradley]

Shh, that's for super-trusted members only Luis, you remember what the Decapitated Deer said.

I'm neutral on this. It makes sense to prevent members from voting for each other to have card access, but it's hard enough to get quorum by 7:00 already. If cardholders don't feel strongly enough to already make up the majority of a HYH vote, do they deserve to deny someone a card? The majority of active members are cardholders, I believe. It's not an elite club.

--
 
 

[arizonamarita]

I disagree with this proposal. 

 

Not only does it smell of elitism. It is easy to overcome.  A group of non-card holding members just has to vote to reverse this proposal and then to vote themselves access.  The only way to stop that is to say that only members with card access are allowed to vote in HYH.  That REALLY smells of elitism. 

 

Does anyone know of an instance when this was required?  Do we want more rules just for the sake of having more rules?  What if the current active members become inactive for a time and there is never enough of a quorum to give access to new members? 

 

The space is there to be used by paying members.  We should encourage access for people who want to come in and create things.  New people and new ideas will keep the space fresh and stimulate more new ideas.  Closing the doors and limiting access will eventually stifle creativity.

 

 

 

--
 
 

[Jeremy Davis]

Ya I just joined, but at 50 bucks a month, it makes sense to get to know people for security and trust sake before getting card access, but just adding the rule even if it seems logical seems unnecessary until it is necessary. So I would be against this unless there has been a "problem" with people who have card access doing things so dangerously bad that you need preventative measures as oppose to just revoking someones card access.

Hopefully that made sense.

Thanks,

Jeremy Davis

[Chad Stearns]

I dont think we have a current problem. I remember months ago we had some controversy about card access although I forgot what sparked.

I think its more sensible for people with card access to grant card access as opposed to just any member. Its best to be conservative about granting valuable things like card access. I dont think this rule would have made any difference for any past card access proposals. Most of them seem be landslides in favor of granting card access. So, if we have 6 card holding members voting on card access or 12 members voting on card access, either way I expect everyone to vote in favor. This is just because almost all the proposals have gone that way in the past. For all normal future card access proposals I expect this to make no practical difference.

But maybe some future card access proposal wont be normal.. Maybe some problem might arise in the future where there is some conflict about granting card access. Whatever that conflict might be, I would expect the judgement of card holding members, to be better than just members in general. At the moment, its possible for some group to just buy memberships, and vote themselves card access. A group of strangers that none of us have met could possibility do this. The absurdity of that possibility alone, reflects a kind of absurdity in our policy.

-ChadCS

On Monday, November 12, 2012 4:14:40 AM UTC-7, Chad Stearns wrote: