[Noisebridge-discuss] Cleaning up - a solution

[Christie Dudley]

The precedent has been set with Scott, although inadvertently.  I'm
perfectly fine to fire a noisbridge member if they aren't doing the job.
I've had to do similar things before.  Based on the venom that passes across
this list, I suspect others will not have that problem either.  (Unless it's
all hot air...)

We need to decide that whatever we're having done is worth paying for.
People are obviously not cleaning the floor or (less obviously) the
bathroom.  We all need to be on the same page that these are worthy of
payment (like the plumbing was) where other things (like the drywall) are
not.

If it's well implemented, I think an open bid process would help people be
more comfortable with this.  Unless people continue to filibuster,
preventing the cleaning needed from happening. What Glenn proposed is an
amazingly cheap bid for what we need to have done.  If we can get it done
cheaper by interested parties

Chirstie
---
Pigs can fly given sufficient thrust.
    - RFC 1925


On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Glen Jarvis <glen at glenjarvis.com> wrote:

> The only difference from this and actually hiring this contract out, is
> that you're hiring a noisebridge interested of a non-interested noisebridge
> person. Everything else is mitigated by a contract as you would have with
> any other outside cleaning agency.
> Warmest Regards,
>
>
> Glen Jarvis
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
>
>> Christie Dudley wrote, On 20091016 093845:
>>
>>> We've already discussed exchanging maid service for membership dues
>>> several months back.  There are legal issues that prevent this.  We
>>> would have to pay someone, then they give us that money as dues.
>>>
>>
>> Hi, actually what was brought up was "exchanging services for membership
>> dues." There were actually more reasons why the group has not been in favor
>> of this both times it's been brought up at meetings...
>>
>> 1. We don't want to have to rate how much work is worthy of paying for
>> one's membership dues.
>> 2. We don't want a situation where the group grants member Bob permission
>> to work X number of hours to pay for their dues and then have member Joe
>> perk up and say they've been doing twice as much work for the space for the
>> past few months and would like to be granted such privilege and "back pay"
>> for all that.
>> 3. No one wants do deal with a situation where a member working in the
>> space paying off their dues isn't doing a good job.
>> 4. And as Christie has pointed out, yes a whole bunch of legal issues.
>>
>> I do attest that all I did was skim through most of your email. If you
>> feel like you're request to exchange man hours for paying off your dues is
>> slightly different then what I described, I recommend bringing this up for
>> discussion at our next meeting. Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Rubin Abdi
>> rubin at starset.net
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091016/2abd1de0/attachment-0003.html>