[EMS Discuss] New Storage Rules for Eugene Maker Space
Wed Oct 30 13:59:08 PDT 2013
You and your fancy formats.... ;0)
From: EMAIL HIDDEN [mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN] On Behalf Of Bob Miller
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Rick Osgood
Cc: Sam Foster; EMAIL HIDDEN
Subject: Re: [EMS Discuss] New Storage Rules for Eugene Maker Space
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.
>> 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
> Discuss mailing list
> EMAIL HIDDEN
Bob Miller K<bob>
More information about the Discuss