Difference between revisions of "2020-05-20 Transcript"

From Nottinghack Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Item 2: Re-opening Nottingham Hackspace)
(Item 2: Re-opening Nottingham Hackspace)
Line 73: Line 73:
  
 
[[File:Nottinghack CONTINGENCY PLANS v7 DRAFT.pdf render.png|thumb|left|Click Image to Open Presentation|link=https://wiki.nottinghack.org.uk/images/f/fb/Nottinghack_CONTINGENCY_PLANS_v7_DRAFT.pdf]]
 
[[File:Nottinghack CONTINGENCY PLANS v7 DRAFT.pdf render.png|thumb|left|Click Image to Open Presentation|link=https://wiki.nottinghack.org.uk/images/f/fb/Nottinghack_CONTINGENCY_PLANS_v7_DRAFT.pdf]]
 +
{{clear}}
  
 
Notes on that presentation:
 
Notes on that presentation:

Revision as of 22:39, 20 May 2020

Members Meeting 20th May 2020

A special meeting held on Zoom covering the details relating to the Election 2020 shared in the newsletter and the presentation showing how the hackspace may reopen

Chair: Gareth H

Minutes: Lex R

Roll Call

2020-05-20Attendees.png


Foreword

This meeting is taking place at a very difficult time, and members should be considerate to each other in raising their concerns.

Item 1: Election 2020

  • Trustees to set the context for postponing elections, there was 1 nomination when 5 were required. Engagement is really up in the air. The intent behind reopening nominations is to force engagement, which is unrealistic expectation to place on members during this difficult time
  • If we delay now, and wait for the space to reopen and for members to use the space and engage with the space, then nominations will reopen
  • the general consensus among the people trustees had spoken to about being good candidates was that they weren't uncertain at the moment.
  • Reiteration that this is a proposal.
  • James Haywood indicating that he didn't feel it was a proposal.
  • Trustees interpretation of the constitution is that by delaying reopening nominations, with safeguards against perceived abuse, is the way to move forward
  • There are safeguards in place - as soon as there is a general easing of the lockdown the election would be reinstated, it cannot go beyond the AGM, and the members can call an EGM.
  • The constitution is open to interpretation, and the actions proposed at being taken in a transparent way.
  • Question around what is the risk to the Hackspace in reopening nominations. Suggestion that Covid reopening could be delegated to other members. Suggestion that managing the hackspace at the moment is easier than when the space is open. Suggestion that in a 2nd round of nominations that other people would come forward. Andrew Walters doesn't see it is necessary.
  • Samathy clarifying that the amount of work is greater rather than less than during normal opening. Doesn't feel that nominations made under duress, are good nominations or in the best interest of the Space. Explaining trustees aren't trying to bully anyone into a process, the trustees have come up with a proposal that they feel is the best option right now and are now seeking members opinions.
  • James Haywood thanking the trustees for their work during this time and agreeing that work load has increased. The rule (threat of closure) was written into the constitution in order to put people under duress, that was the point. Proposal was included in newsletter rather than issued directly as a proposal. (edited)
  • Samathy agrees that closure threat is acceptable during 'normal' time, but feels that it's not so acceptable during this time, and the board will benefit from continuity.
  • Dominic reiterating that the hackspace is closed, so threatening closure doesn't have any teeth at the moment. People who were considering nominating themselves, didn't feel that they could step up during this time. There was only 1 person willing to step up at this time. The current situation has prevented people from coming forward as nominees, so delaying it gives continuity.


(Posted to Slack by: dpslwk @ 7:17 PM) from the Articles: https://wiki.nottinghack.org.uk/wiki/Nottingham_Hackspace_LTD

1.126 In determining attendance at a general meeting, it is immaterial whether any two or more members attending it are in the same place as each other.

this rule does allow us to consider an AGM/EGM in zoom or some other means that just all in a room


  • James Haywood clarifying that there's always been problems encouraging people to step forward. Would rather follow the constitution to the end, and then reconsider the entire process, feels that it's the skipping of the steps that is upsetting
  • Lex reiterating that people have already expressed interest but the current situation is preventing them from putting themselves forward.
  • Andrew Walters accepting the correction about work load. Suggesting that other members could take on some of the management responsibilities to free up the trustees to reopen elections. (edited)
  • Dominic and Andrew Walters clarifying that the bigger issue was Dominic and Russel remaining on the board, rather than no reopening elections.
  • Dan stating all the lengths trustees went to to encourage nominations - newsletter, individual conversation and zoom meetings. Also decision making process for trustees requires 5
  • Andrew Armstrong clarifying that Dominic and Russel's continuation is no different to what would happen if there's not enough nominations.
  • Dominic and Russel clarifying that they had hoped to stand down. Dominic stepped up at a time he perceived to be crucial and had no intention to be on the board any longer.
  • Mark reiterating that there's a need for a strong board to get us through this crisis.
  • Gareth wants to establish an outcome - asking if anyone else has any other proposals to put forward.
  • Andrew Armstrong - if there's a 2nd nomination window and close the space at the end of that, what happens regarding that 5.5.5 window.
  • James Haywood suggesting that the consultation period at the end the 2nd nomination period, which would be a very long consultation period considering whether we even remain a space, rather than fablab/ have trustees etc.
  • Andrew Armstrong suggesting that that will be hard to take to the membership and will result in the space being closed for a long time.
  • Samathy clarifying that the wording in the newsletter is not the final wording. Questioning what the hackspace is during a pandemic would be difficult, and should be reserved for an AGM.
  • Andrew Walters thanking the trustees for their work. Would be more comfortable having 2nd nominations, but understands what's been said and the good intentions of the trustees.
  • James Haywood clarifying that is wasn't a suggestion to redefine the Hackspace only that that was the spirit of that particular point. Disagrees that the pandemic is a bad time to have that kind of consultation.
  • Emily suggesting that nominations are reopened until there is enough candidates.
  • Dominic explaining the point of having a window, to keep nominations relatively secret and ensure a fair election.
  • Ruby supporting the trustees decision
  • Steve feels that departing from the constitution sets a bad precedent. Feels that we have a constitutional way to approach the problem, having a longer nomination window before a 2nd nomination. (edited)

This is the end of this section.

  • Gareth wrapping it up and suggesting waiting until the complete proposal is submitted


Item 2: Re-opening Nottingham Hackspace

Next section is concerned with National easing of the lockdown and how that might affect the HS and access to the HS

Dan to present the draft reopening strategy

Click Image to Open Presentation

Notes on that presentation:

  • Level 2 achievable once government allows leisure facilities to open.
  • The studio, blue room and classroom have not been included up to level 3, because they are intended for group activities, which wouldn't be feasible.
  • James requesting that names are available so you know who you're sharing the space with. Dan clarifying that all bookings would be anonymised - other trustees explaining this is for GDPR and safeguarding reasons.
  • Matt to demo HMS interfaces at the end of the presentation
  • Sarah asking about occupancy caps when fully reopening - to ensure no one travels to the space and then can't enter. Dan does not expect there to be a cap, but software team will be able to solve such issues if necessary
  • Samathy clarifying front exit is still an emergency exit.
  • Clarification that PPE may be made available or mandated for inductions.
  • Gareth asking about Hackspace's liability. Dan does not believe that there is a liability or obligation. Mark reiterating that with his knowledge - the due diligence is being done, and people must be responsible for themselves.
  • Bob raises a point about PPE for machine work - we can't sustain that, will people be required to bring their own. Should people be using large tools, circular saw/planer etc while alone in the space.
  • Clarification that Hackspace will not be open to members while Jane is cleaning the space (wednesday mornings)
  • Mike requesting consideration for using the working spaces (classroom/blueroom) to give people an option to work outside their home.


Matt demo'd the software.


  • Ruby asks if people book but don't show up, does the slot become available, it does not, but people who repeatedly book but don't show will be contacted by trustees, as it deprives other members of access to the space
  • many thanks to Matt for his time developing the system. the trustees for their time designing the processes.
  • Andrew Walters reiterating the need for consideration of 'safety partners' and maintenance.
  • Main roadblock on making the front entrance gatekeeper usable for in and out is safely having access to get to the space and enough time to install a new system
  • In/Out slack channel should be redundant after this is in use.


Gareth thanking everyone for attending and contributing this evening.

Meeting Closed