[EMS Discuss] New Storage Rules for Eugene Maker Space

Austin McKimmey EMAIL HIDDEN
Wed Oct 30 13:57:12 PDT 2013


I think I know something to add, and will make some difference. This might
clarify what Rick, Sam are thinking of

There needs to be a difference between some things
-inactive project
-active project

-tools and parts storage
(there is a difference between storing something on a shelf and storing
something in floor space)

These should have different rules. People should not have to pay the same
if they are working on something, if the price is the same as something
just sitting around.

I have worked on 2 large projects, A canoe in the summer, I worked on that
ever day and had it in there for about a week. and a bike trailer a couple
weeks ago, same thing. I hope to be able to do more large projects in the
future if we get more space and a better "dirty" work space. I might be
turned away if I would have to spend something like $25 more just to work a
larger project.

I think whatever we do there will be a lot of gray area. And part of it
might need to be on a honor system. And if it becomes a problem it should
be taken care of.


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bob Miller <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:

> Sorry.  .md is Markdown.  http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
>  If you don't have a Markdown reader, you can open it as a text file.
> Meanwhile, here it is as a PDF file.
>
> I'll wait until you've read the proposal before addressing your other
> comments.
>
> 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 go?
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> >> /Sam
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > EMAIL HIDDEN
> >
> http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Bob Miller                              K<bob>
>                                         EMAIL HIDDEN
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> EMAIL HIDDEN
> http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eugenemakerspace.com/pipermail/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss/attachments/20131030/5d1a89cb/attachment.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list