Talk:Vote to rework membership points: Difference between revisions
From Pumping Station One
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
* I would be willing to look at this case by case. For certain related activities it might make sense. | * I would be willing to look at this case by case. For certain related activities it might make sense. | ||
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
=== Requested changes for Teaching Section === | |||
1. Under Supplementary wiki, change the Teaching section to remove all the "Authorizing X..." and "Running a Welding X..." and replace it with: | |||
"Performing 3 hours of tool authorizations." | |||
* I still take issue with switching to a time based model. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | |||
** I feel it increases expectation of member points --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | |||
** I do not feel that all authorization are of similar complexity or desirability. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | |||
== The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. == | == The tool list is fairly arbitrary and incomplete. == | ||
| Line 189: | Line 198: | ||
* Overall the lack of benefit to area hosts, and the vagueness of an area hosts realm of responsibility, I'm opting to nix the discussion altogether. That said, If an Area Hosts comes up with a good reason to change this, I'm listening. I mostly just don't see the point. | * Overall the lack of benefit to area hosts, and the vagueness of an area hosts realm of responsibility, I'm opting to nix the discussion altogether. That said, If an Area Hosts comes up with a good reason to change this, I'm listening. I mostly just don't see the point. | ||
* several people have expressed that they feel area hosts should be able to get points for doing stuff outside there area. I, need to reconsider my stance on this. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | * several people have expressed that they feel area hosts should be able to get points for doing stuff outside there area. I, need to reconsider my stance on this. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
*. (Ryan) Under the policy language, change the Eligibility section to remove the statement "Area hosts are not eligible for member points." There is already language in the Area Hosts and Volunteer Positions policy that will suffice. | |||
== Dialog == | == Dialog == | ||
| Line 210: | Line 220: | ||
A class has traditionally been loosely defined, and are not generally hands on. That said, what you describe sounds awesome, I am open to rewarding preperation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | A class has traditionally been loosely defined, and are not generally hands on. That said, what you describe sounds awesome, I am open to rewarding preperation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | ||
=== Change request for classes === | |||
2. In that same section, for classes change "5 or more people" to a lower number. We originally suggested 1, but if 2 or 3 is needed to reach a compromise, we can support that. (Elizabeth and Ryan) | |||
* I prefer to deal with this case by case. For classes without material preparation or that can be done completely concurrently (math, programming, writing, etc) I prefer to keep the default at 5, and lower the requirement case by case. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (CDT) | |||
