[EMS Discuss] New Storage Rules for Eugene Maker Space
Wed Oct 30 13:33:08 PDT 2013
I should clarify that I'm not trying to tear apart this proposal. I
actually like the overall ideas I'm just concerned about how we will
actually be able to enforce them. Maybe we just need more details or
clarifications is what I'm getting at.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Rick Osgood <EMAIL HIDDEN>wrote:
> First of all, what is a .md file? I don't seem to have anything that can
> open it and I'm not familiar with the extension.
> Second, I like this idea in general (based only on your summary). I get
> Sam's point that we might be restricting what activities will occur at EMS
> based on who can afford to actually do those activities. It seems a bit
> unfair that someone with more money essentially has more options but
> honestly, we have to do SOMEthing. We need to make sure things don't just
> collect and sit around forever.
> How with the $2.50 be billed? $2.50 per sqft per month? per week? What
> if I only use the space for 1-2 weeks but you want to bill me per month?
> Do I have to pay for the whole month or do you pro-rate it so I only pay
> for the time used? What if it's 1.5 weeks? Do we go per day at that point
> or round up to the nearest week/month?
> Also, what if someone wants to keep their large project out for three
> days? Two days are free, anything over that and we start charging money.
> How much will we stick to our guns on that? I can envision many cases
> where someone's project sticks around an extra day or two. Do we then
> demand them to pay us $2.50 per square foot pro-rated or do we just let it
> I think it might be useful to include a provision that says the
> board/membership can vote to approve larger projects with the requirement
> that the motion includes a "review date". That way if EMS as an
> organization wants to work on or sponsor some large project, we have a way
> to approve it. Requiring the "review date" ensures that a project which
> has gone stale or has lost momentum can be either booted out or start
> paying rent.
> Lastly, EVERYTHING GETS A LABEL OR YOU LOSE IT! I think this is fair but
> I'm curious about possible legal ramifications I'm guessing we would only
> be able to get an answer to that by talking to a lawyer and we aren't made
> of money so maybe we just have to consider it a disclaimer and hope for the
> best. Worth thinking about anyway though.
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sam Foster <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:
>> I have mixed feelings about the storage proposal. I think in general I'm
>> in favor, but the rates do put larger projects (e.g bike/trailer) out of
>> reach of my budget. On the flip-side, I think its appropriate that the
>> space *not* be used for indefinite storage of materials/junk/inactive
>> projects by members, so the rates are a reasonable deterrent (there's
>> self-storage units for that). I assume these are the kind of considerations
>> that led to the current proposal.
>> Somewhere in there I worry that we are putting a box around the kinds of
>> things that can happen at the maker space. But I welcome the clarity and I
>> assume no policies are set in stone from now till the end of time.
>> On 10/30/2013 12:11 PM, Bob Miller wrote:
>>> At our membership meeting Dec. 8th, I am going to propose that we
>>> adopt some rules about storage. I have attached a document which
>>> would amend the Policies Document. I will propose that these rules
>>> take effect January 1st.
>>> Since items up for vote have to be proposed 30 days ahead, we have
>>> until 11/7 to discuss this and refine it. Discuss/refine away!
>> Discuss mailing list
>> EMAIL HIDDEN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discuss