[EMS Discuss] New Storage Rules for Eugene Maker Space

Rick Osgood EMAIL HIDDEN
Wed Oct 30 15:32:38 PDT 2013


Austin does make a good point about the Shelf space.  Floor space
effectively takes up 1sqft from floor to ceiling.  Shelf space allows
stacking of things on top so in a way we might say we have more of it.  I
guess that depends on how many storage shelves we have vs floor storage
space though.

Austin's comment about possibly turning away because he'd have to shell out
extra money for floor space is my primary concern with a model like this.
 However, I think it's important for people to remember that there are two
reasons we want to implement these rules:

1. Cut down on wasted space.
2. Alternate revenue stream.

Remember we have some pretty ambitious goals for EMS and we are going to
need a lot more money than we are currently making in order to reach these
goals.  Remember that charging $25 (or whatever) for you to work on a long
term large scale project isn't just to make it a hassle for you.  We don't
want to gouge the members of course.  It's a way to make sure people who
are using more resources help us to afford the space they are using while
they are using it.  If we don't charge money for that space, we might not
be able to afford to get the space and then you may not even have the
option of working on a larger project.  It also has a side effect of making
people really think about whether or not they need that space.

I think in some cases members might be able to get other members to sponsor
their projects if they can't afford it themselves.  Maybe you could get a
couple other members to put up the $25 (or whatever) for you to have a
month to get your awesome project done if you can't afford it.  I'm sure we
can work something out one way or another to make sure money is not a huge
limiting factor for our members.


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bob Miller <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:

> I agree that we should have some sort of pro-rating structure.  I am
> wondering if maybe we should have some minimum rental amount -- maybe
> $10.  Otherwise poor Kevin (or whoever is 2014's treasurer) has a
> boatload of bookkeeping for very little revenue.
>
> Combining this with Austin and Clif's point that the shelf space is
> just as expensive per sq ft as floor space, I think something needs
> adjusting. I don't know what the right adjustment is.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Rick Osgood <EMAIL HIDDEN>
> wrote:
> > I like the proposal now that I've read it.  I'm still curious about how
> it
> > would be billed if someone only needed space for a few days or a week.
>  I'm
> > also curious how that time will be enforced.  Also, what happens if
> people
> > are using all the space and there ends up not being enough room for
> others?
> > Do projects get a maximum time limit so we can get new people in the
> space
> > and make sure to share the space?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Mr. Clif <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Gang,
> >>
> >> So here are my two cents worth.
> >>
> >> Just to clarify the annual meeting is on Saturday Dec 7th, not the 8th.
> >>
> >> Some of our members were in favor of tiered dues, some were not. One
> >> possibility here is to include a free bin with the next tier up, and
> maybe
> >> also include a discount on classes.
> >>
> >> I think that if members are going to get a free bin or box then they are
> >> required to always be members in good standing, eg don't skip any dues
> and
> >> have them paid up. Wheres lower tier members might not have that
> >> requirement.
> >>
> >> I assume that the shelves would be two feet deep which would give you
> the
> >> same $2.50 per Sqft rate.
> >>
> >> I think constantly updating a date on a tag to show the paid through
> date
> >> is impractical. Perhaps we could have an item number that we can look
> up in
> >> a data base?
> >>
> >> I think that if we make our policy clear on left items and that we try
> to
> >> return them for at least 30 days then its probably legal to take
> possession
> >> of them after that. Something like this:
> >>
> >> "...EMS will make a reasonable effort to return the items for at least
> 30
> >> days past due."
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about the members voting outside of an official meeting.
> >> This could be a special meeting as long as it is official, but even so
> >> getting a members quorum is often very hard, and not requiring one is
> not
> >> fair, so not sure what to do here. Just patitioning the board might be
> an
> >> option.
> >>
> >> At first I thought we could do the gallery like other maker spaces and
> >> charge for it. But I do like it being kind of a group consensious to
> show
> >> off what we're doing. I think the board would decide what area(s) are
> >> gallery space(s). I think that one year changes in the gallery is way
> too
> >> slow. Perhaps it could be updated at each regular membership meeting, or
> >> online votes. Like Bob I would be less concerned about official meetings
> >> here but not sure what is fair.
> >>
> >>     More thoughts later...
> >>     Clif
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/30/2013 01:33 PM, Rick Osgood wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eugenemakerspace.com/pipermail/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss/attachments/20131030/b80a236b/attachment.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list