Committee Proposal on September's Board Agenda

[kthutch]

Pretty sure that could be purchased with Wal-Mart grants…

[David]

I made this public for just this purpose…discussion. I’m not married to the month we do things, nor against more wording to clarify some things. But as to the question about what types of things, the answer is YES. If we have enough members that want it, why not? As long as it doesn’t conflict with our mission, let’s make it available. The safeguards are that we have to have a number of members willing to serve on that committee, and that the Board of Directors has oversight.

[Erik]

The committees should have the power to fundraise, including grants. But funds should all be processed through the board and treasurer for committee use. And the board should have the power to remove leads or entire committees who abuse their position. The ceramics area seems to have a developed an excellent model in posting their balance sheet regularly and forming a “committee” approach with the folks who are interested.

[Erik]

Dallas uses this system, and they have excellent record keeping.

Here is an example of a recent (monthly) 3d fab lab meeting https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/3D_Fabrication_Committee_Meeting

The standing rules of that committee https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Category:3D_Fabrication

Links to committee rules and list of all Dallas committees. https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Category:Committees

[james.a.seymour]

Areas run by committee? So convert from a system where we struggle to find one person to lead an area, to a system that requires four?

Just trying to wrap my head about all of these committees

[Erik]

5 actually. Not trying to take over this discussion, sorry if I’m too vocal about it. Ive been encouraging this for a while.

I wouldn’t want to be benevolent dictator of an area if I were asked. Im not an expert in any area makeict currently has. I would however join a committee if asked. Especially a committee for an area that i have a particular interest in shaping. As an example Dallas’s creative arts committee or digital media committee. I have a strong suspicion that others might feel the same.

[Malissa]

How will we address committees such as Membership, Volunteers, Financial Audit, Fundraising, Communications, Scholarship,etc. that we know the space needs and we don’t want to dissolve if they fall below 5 members? There should be a defined group of committees that are standing committees that do not have to have 5 members to operate and a way for the board to create and dissolve temporary committees like what we are doing for the Booth Project.

[David]

Directly from my initial proposal:

@David

Committees initially established by the Board of Directors can only be dissolved by vote of the Board.

[Malissa]

@David

Committees

Committees are voluntary groups, formed in order to operate and maintain an area of the Makerspace, foster growth of a community of interested persons, or accomplish certain needs, subject to the oversight of the Board of Directors.

Maybe we should have 3 classes of committees and have those defined?

• Standing Committees are formed by the Board and are on-going
• Ad Hoc Committees are formed by the board to do a specific task and serve for a defined amount of time
• Specialized Committees are formed by the membership and approved by the Board

@David

Formation

1. At least 5 members are required to form a committee.

change committee to Specialized Committees and add the following …by adding the request to the next monthly Board agenda, that included a name of the committee, description of what it does, names all committee members and recommended chair.

@David

Committee Leadership

1. Each Committee shall select by vote a recommended Committee Chairperson, and shall vote for a Committee Chairperson prior to the September Board Meeting each year, so that the recommendation may be presented to the Board. The Board shall appoint the Chairperson for each Committee, taking into consideration the recommendation of the Committee.

I would change to October or leave at September to help facilitate budgeting and have that set in stone before Christmas

@pwhutchi

I think we need a section on dissolution of committees that deals with how any remaining funds are dealt with and the disposition of committee equipment. It seems there’s a 30 day window before a committee auto-destructs, but I would like that to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, so long as the bits about required notice jive with other similar rules to reduce confusion, I think this sounds pretty reasonable.

@David

If the number of committee members drops below 5, the committee will have a grace period of 30 days in order to recruit enough members to remain active. Committees initially established by the Board of Directors can only be dissolved by vote of the Board.

add When a committee is dissolved by a vote of the Board all monetary assets will return to the general fund of the makerspace. Any physical assets of the committee can be claimed for use in other areas of the makerspace, any physical assets not claimed by another committee can be disposed of using the 3 nerd rule.

[kim]

I’d set the minimum meeting requirement to be 6-8 weeks, not monthly.

I would add some qualification about membership actually having to attend meetings to be called a member. If each member has to attend say 75% of the last three meetings, Patrick’s margarita machine will have a harder time finding members than if they just have to sign up, right?

[Erik]

I think the board can still use its best judgement when approving committees to begin with. Further, if theres already an electronics committee, it might be prudent for the board not to approve a robotics committee and instead encourage the robotics folks to get involved with electronics as a special interest group (SIG). The same might go for a group who wants to create an “oil based clay sculpting committee”… they might be encouraged to join with the creative arts committee instead as a SIG.

Edit: Not that those committees couldn’t exist, but they would not necessarily be allocated resources directly from the board, but rather from the closest existing committee that already had resources allocated.

[tom.bloom]

@Erik, I think the robotics group/committee/sig is a case where the robotics might not be a total slam dunk to put it under electronics. Members working on building robots would use many areas for construction. and be more about reserving space, and resources to build sumo tracks, or reserve a room for battle bot style area, ect.

I would assume there would be a self limiting factor by requiring 5+ member engagement and activity and clear. I assume something as niche as Oil clay sculpting would be a tough sell to get enough members to be involved.

If there were minimal resource requirements, and no safety issues then I would hate to the board monkey with the intent too much. The main resource the board would be allocating is space/storage and possibly $$, but I would think that would be tied to number of members involved and make them fund raise or self capitalize.

There is a supply and demand structure here, that I think could be beneficial to allow creative engagement by the membership. It also puts it open the general membership as a whole to go in different directions.

We have in the past had the top down, if you build it they will come approach that has lacked energy/activity in certain areas, because it was not tied to activity, and they either took off or they don’t.

[Erik]

Absolutely. Everything is done/discussed/backed up by reason. Same as in business in general. Your reasoning for the robotics is exactly the q&a that should be done for all committees and decisions in general.

[james.a.seymour]

“We have in the past had the top down, if you build it they will come approach”

The areas were started because there was intrest in that type of making. Ceramics is a great example, so is jewelry. Our actual shortcomings (just my opinion) have to do with engagement of the membership. The makerspace originally was more of an electronics lab with some simple construction tools. Over the years we have added stuff that people show an intrest in. This has been a fundamental brick in our system and part of what makes us.

And why we don’t have a taxidermy lab.

[Erik]

Currently jewelry is a good example of how a committee that had real interest in making it happen would be beneficial.

[james.a.seymour]

It did! Jewelry was prototyped in the ERP lab. There was enough intrest in it that it earned it’s own room. The area lead changed hands a few times, a few balls may have been dropped, but it certainly wasn’t something the board implemented hoping people would use it.

[Erik]

Right, I think Dean has done the best with what he has. He a creative guy!

If you look at a lot of the committees on Dallas they function in a similar way in regards to incubating a new area-committee. There are many SIGs listed under the main committee’s areas. Many specifically call out that their area has spawned many successful spinoff areas (just like erp/jewelry).

[ssaner]

I think James is correct that a lot of the current shortcomings have to do with lack of engagement of the membership. But I think the committee proposal might be a way to encourage engagement. I’d be hopeful that a structured process such as what is proposed would make it easier for people to become involved in supporting an area that they are interested in. I think it could become easier to be part of the process with lower initial levels of responsibility and grow into higher levels of responsibility. I think some structure can make it more clear what is expected to be part of the process, which makes it easier to jump in.

And, on the negative side of things, it might be a more objective way to determine that a area needs to be downsized or dissolved when interest in that area wanes.

As a current area lead, I generally support the proposal. I think some of the tweaks discussed are good, but the overall idea seems positive to me. Of course if we really can’t get enough people to become involved, then it might not work. But I’d be game to try it.

[james.a.seymour]

I’m all for committees, it’s a more formal version of the three nerd rule. We may need a definition of attendance though. Perhaps a discourse server?

[Erik]

Attendance is kept for all meetings and posted to the wiki along with minutes and all the other info.