No, each area has storage policies that govern materials. Generally if it’s left unmarked without owners name and a date its considered abandoned. If it is marked but it’s been sitting for a month or longer the member sometimes gets contacted about it before it being treated as abandoned.
Personal tools and equipment should probably be securely stored in a locker when not being used or taken home.
I think what this policy is trying to address is equipment/tools that go undocumented and are large enough to not be easily stored.
To be completely honest if it is an item that has to be mounted to the building it shouldn’t be loaned to the space. If the item requires the space to plumb or run cables specifically for it, it shouldn’t be loaned.
The loan policy was a great idea when the organization was smaller but now it just makes more sense, to me, that we move from that policy to either buying equipment outright as an organization or members donating for specific areas to get equipment. It worked in woodshop for their big tool buy last year.
To allow for members to provide their equipment to MakeICT for the purposes of an event without demanding that they take it home on the day of the event, while also not placing the burden of tracking long-term loans on the Inventory committee.
It’s my understanding that there are currently no loan agreements in place.
I don’t think it was ever on the agenda.
To make it as clear as possible that equipment loans to MakeICT are not permitted, except in circumstances of very tightly-conscribed and explicit timeframes, with a plan in place for timely removal.
The point is that MakeICT should not be held responsible for the property of individual members, including loss, damage, or sudden removal by the owner.
You’re proposing that loans not be permitted. They currently are permitted and are supposed to be handled by the area leads. In the past, this has not always been done well or consistently, but that doesn’t mean the Tool Loan policy as-is is necessarily a bad policy. It just means things have become lax and better processes are needed to support the policy. Any inventory policy will require processes to function - including the one you’re proposing. And creating processes is far more time consuming than writing policy.
But here’s my biggest concern with this policy:
From the Area Lead policy
They take ownership and responsibility for the culture, equipment, and activities within their area. Area Leads decide what activities and equipment belong within their area, and any rules or policies that need to be followed.
The policy you’re proposing is at odds with the responsibilities of area leads. There’s an understanding that the board lets the lead control their area, and by removing the lead’s ability to accept loaned equipment you’re treading on their responsibilities.
I see this proposed policy as a knee-jerk solution to a bad situation that just happened. Knee-jerk policies are rarely a good idea as they are a reaction to a problem rather than an analysis of a problem. We need inventory processes, people to do the work, and follow through when the processes fail. I talked to several people last December about a concern with lack of adherence to the Tool Loan policy and no one seemed concerned at the time. We can’t keep ignoring the brewing problems and only react to disasters.
Solidly, well said @gemma. Thanks.
Correct. I am proposing that they no longer be permitted, regardless of what area leads might prefer.
I suppose we could just flat out ban loans, but I wanted to make an exception for events. Not a good idea?
Maybe area leads shouldn’t have that kind of power. What is the point of policy that area leads can just ignore if the behavior it governs happens in their areas? Harassing people is an activity-- should leads be the ones to determine whether that’s acceptable in their area, ignoring the Code of Conduct policy?
One of the benefits of loaning a tool to Make, as opposed to donating it, was that Make was required to do the upkeep and maintenance on the tool to keep it in “approximately the same or better condition than they were received in”. I know that is supposed to happen for donated tools, but it doesn’t always happen. How will this be addressed?
Why should MakeICT have to babysit and pay for the care of property belonging to individual members who brought that property onto the premises and left it there, but which MakeICT can’t count on remaining there for any period of time because the member/owner may remove it whenever they choose?
It doesn’t sound like you are open to other’s opinions at this time.
Being open to opinions doesn’t require agreeing with them.
I agree with Gemma. Enforcement of current policy is preferable. We’ve had major issues this year with “loans” and “donations” and lack of clarification or receiving prior approval before large heavy items just appear in the areas I frequent, and that’s just the areas I know.
We also have a problem with people being told something is against the rules and they argue about it and then claim they were never told, or they argue we’re terrible people for not appreciating the loan/donation because it’s expensive/valuable/attractive/so handy/so useful.
There are no penalties in the current policy, and we’ve seen a LOT of drama from folks who’ve been officially reprimanded after warnings. The denial has been substantial.
There is no policy which prevents bad behavior, and there’s no policy which by itself prevents drama (anyone who thinks they can write one is welcome to offer up specific language, if you could find it you’d have the eternal gratitude of A LOT of people).
I don’t believe that eliminating options for cooperative members is the answer to the bad behavior and subsequent drama over consequences which we’ve seen this past year.
I think that the options for cooperative (or uncooperative) members should be counter-balanced against the obligations imposed on MakeICT, as described in the existing Equipment Loan Agreement form:
So there is no sense in which only the member and the area lead are responsible for the loaned equipment.
If these obligations didn’t exist, then yes, it would seem reasonable to let people loan equipment to areas if the lead and two board members agree to it (that’s what the current policy requires).
But is that arrangement even possible?
And where would the penalties be placed on members under the existing policy, other than potentially losing the item if they miss the 30 day deadline to remove it after receiving the request?
It sounds like in the past, there wasn’t enough documentation about whether something was loaned or donated. If it is loaned, then the owner can remove it at anytime. If it is donated, the donor no longer has claim. As far as the maintenance, if equipment is loaned to MakeICT for members to use, then MakeICT should be responsible for maintenance since it is being used as if it belonged to the space.
So did they just not use the form?
Why should MakeICT have to babysit and pay for the care of property belonging to individual members who brought that property onto the premises and left it there, but which MakeICT can’t count on remaining there for any period of time because the member/owner may remove it whenever they choose?
Because then Makeict can temporarily sidestep tool investment cost (buying a widget) but still provide the tool.
It happened quite organicly and we actually built the rule around the process.
The leads have that kind of power to decentralize the effort. This organization is a group of people who work together to maintain a shared workshop. Like I can’t afford a welder AND a serger AND a 3d printer, all while feeding those hobbies materials too. But get enough ants and you can move a mountain in a day. The leads are just knowledgeable people that take charge. There isn’t anything magical about the job. If you talked to a lead about taking on a responsibility in the shop they will be appreciative.
Nobody is paid, nobody makes a profit. Nobody stands to gain, unless we all stand to gain.
So I currently have a curve tracer. My pride and joy. Tf am I going to do with a curve tracer? Transistor profiling and matching. There is no way I’m lending my nist traceable calibrated curve tracer to a shared workspace without some guarantee it will be looked after. Everyone wins because Makeict gets to use a curve tracer, I know it will be looked after.
Or it can sit in my basement till I get around to that project
Conversely, if somebody loses, we all lose. Your curve tracer would be used (or is being used?) by a member or members. So imagine that they literally lose it. They lose it, so you lose it (it’s your pride and joy, after all), so MakeICT loses because it’s on the hook.
This policy is obviously unpopular so I’m not going to try to push it further in any form. Consider it revoked, DOA, kaput.
I would, however, like to hear more about how the current policy can be enforced.
With clear and effective processes. Idk if he has the time, but that’s @JBlackburn area of expertise.
The current policy could be enforced if we had an Inventory Lead. Currently this position is not filled. If anyone feels strongly about this, I urge you to volunteer to be the Inventory Lead.
Can you point us to more information about the inventory committee?
What they do, how they’ve done it, how many people are currently on the committee, etc?
I bet @ladeana can answer this question better than me. 
