[Noisebridge-discuss] Deep Crack
jim
jim at well.com
Thu Oct 8 07:47:34 UTC 2009
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:21 -0700, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> 1) I would LOVE Noisebridge to be somehow able to host loans. (I even
> raised my hand.)
JS: seems the two objections to NB accepting loans are
* lender cannot expect NB to be responsible for whatever's loaned.
* community will be disrupted by an abrupt removal of the loaned stuff.
at last night's meeting there was a hypothetical example
given of some kind of negotiated loan of something hard-to-find
or otherwise expensive, and no one challenged that.
>
> 2) As far as I could tell, you clearly opposed loaned equipment until
> Deep Crack wasn't going to be a free-and-clear donation. Is this
> different because there simply will never be a chance to "hold out for a
> no-strings-attached" version?
JS: this was not presented as a loan, rather as an intention
to work on a project and the hope we could all get around to
negotiating any problems satisfactorily.
>
>
> 3) And then on TOP of all of this, i feel we really cannot afford to
> avoid "our insurance doesn't cover our asses if any loaned equipment
> falls over and squishes someone's 6-year-old kid / sews their hand to
> the table / cooks your nads". If we host loaned things, we need to
> update our insurance policy somehow, and insurance isn't something you
> can "address if and when a problem actually comes up."
JS: insurance covers injury but not equipment loss, yes? the
same case as with the drill press or bean soup or cleaning
agents....
> > The discussion of liability is perhaps only relevant if we can even
> > bring the thing into the space.
> No, it's relevant Right Now, because otherwise it may be
> full-steam-ahead. Do-ocracy and all that. Also, this Loaner Equipment
> Question isn't going to go away.
JS: seems not a loan. wrt liability, seems on a par with network,
cooking, dirty workshop equipment....
> > Have we become a space where for each project, we must justify and sell
> > every project to every member? That seems like it's not the case. It
> > would be quite sad if it was so.
>
> I think that's called "consensus", especially when it exposes us to
> legal risk, cost, may fuck over other members, or makes our insurance
> invalid.
JS: consensus seems mainly a matter of protecting each individual
from group decisions that may impinge on an individual's well-being.
if someone's project or happiness or whatever is threatened by
bringing this thing in, that should be addressed. so far i don't
see any such complaint.
the liability angle and the cost angle seem to be parallel with
other stuff we've got going. the space issue, too: e.g. the photo
darkroom, the library, members' shelves, the kitchen, the various
crap that kept sitting around at 83C....
>
> This is definitely your DIYBioFridge, and I DO feel we were unexcellent
> to bounce that thing out of 83c, regardless of whether a particular
> member was driving us nuts.
JS: we may have been, i kind of tho't so. if so, that was a mistake,
not a precedent to justify continuing such behavior.
>
> If we have a committee that will work out what is necessary to allow us
> to cover our asses while bringing loaned equipment in, I want on it. I
> will read boring legal documentation till my eyes bleed.
JS: sorry to say, this seems kind of vengeful; is it? maybe
understandable, but if so, not good, yes?
also note the proposal is not about loaning equipment, just
allowing several members to bring in a big gizmo for a project
that they're assuring us would be a matter of one or two months--
they seem excited about getting into it, whatever it is, and
shouldn't we be supportive (or at least apathetic)?
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list