[Spacecadets] Proposed proposal 2.

Tue Apr 12 01:49:14 PDT 2016

Can a moderator of this list approve my email to the list so that everyone can see what I sent to the board? The attachements pushed me over the 40 KB limit.

Christopher Zapotocky
________________________________________
From: Spacecadets [spacecadets-bounces at quelab.net] on behalf of Christopher A W Zapotocky [czapo at unm.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:54 AM
To: Space Utilization
Subject: Re: [Spacecadets] Proposed proposal 2.

I added your suggested wording.

Christopher Zapotocky
________________________________________
From: Spacecadets [spacecadets-bounces at quelab.net] on behalf of Geoff Nicholson [geoff at quelab.net]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:24 AM
To: Space Utilization
Subject: Re: [Spacecadets] Proposed proposal 2.

In the original statement, the * item read to indicate that there were two "original missions"; I would amend it to read thus:

* The original mission of the task force was to look at options for expanding, or relocating Quelab. The mission then refined to focus on the feasibility of renting the Annex and looking at how the space would be utilized to make recommendations on ideal utilization configurations which would benefit Quelab.

Having not attended any of the meetings, I can't speak to the content as a Space Cadet.

-- geoff
-- quelab.net<http://quelab.net>

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Christopher A W Zapotocky <czapo at unm.edu<mailto:czapo at unm.edu>> wrote:
Hi Darrel,

This is quite a set of modifications. Let me point out a few things.

I believe as a committee, we had agreed that we would send two separate proposals since these are two entirely separate issues. The original mandate of the Space Cadets was as I stated in the proposal footnote. We are with this proposal concluding the mission with which we were tasked originally.

The second proposal deals with an extended mission and purpose for the Space Cadets at Quelab now that our original mandate has been completed.

Since these are two entirely different issues and both have different time periods in which they need to be acted on (although I have proposed they be dealt with at the same time), I think it is best to leave these two issues as different proposals.

For the specific modifications here are my thoughts

Item 2 modification
--All areas of Quelab are covered by the committee but no specific action is required unless specifically requested by the Board, the Facilities Manager or one or more area captains.

I believe this is redundant and more restrictive than was my goal of the proposal. From my training in technical report writing redundancy should be avoided in a technical writing. Since we are dealing with "all matters related to Quelab space organization, assignments, definitions, and purpose." That encompasses anything dealing with how the space is used at Quelab. Since there are no exceptions to what space the committee can consider, it is assumed we can consider any space. Since out proposals are non-binding without the board of directors approval this should cause no issue with anyone in the space.

As for the last part about specific requests needing action, I believe that is not necessary to discuss. I left the proposal intensionally vague to allow for anyone to submit requests for discussion on space utilization to the committee because that is our job as a committee to consider input from all the members. Similarly, I left it intentionally vague as to a requirement for the committee to take action on proposals because I would like to reserve our right on whether to take action on a proposal for the committee. We can, by our own own initiative, take action or no action on a proposal.

Item 3 modification

I will add this. I would like to change the work "justification" to "explanation."

Item 4a modification

I don't think this comment is necessary. The footnote will let the committee know what they need to do. I actually do not think the board should put down a specific policy on the length of the rental period because we do not know what the desired length of rental contract will be. The board's best option, in my opinion, would be to let the rental officer determine (experiment with) rental contract lengths over the next 6 to 8 months before we set a policy on length of rental contracts.

Item 4b and c modification

I can fix those. Originally they were suppose to be sub-proposals to 4a, but it is somewhat arbitrary how they are placed.

Item 4e

It is already the default status that the board approves any sort of money matters, so we are only stating for the purpose of clarification that this $1.50 is only for the specific space defined and that any rented space in the future will be left for the board to negotiate. We are making the board aware that they need to look at each proposal on a proposal-by-proposal basis.

Footnote 3
I was clarifying how we were defining space as it pertains to the fee. No reference to how the space is used is stated in the proposal and I would like to leave that up to the rental officer. The idea is that that rental contract is for a specific defined space greater than or equal to the realistic floor space that will be used (unavailable to others). How this is to be refined further is up to the rental office. I personally think the vast majority of members want mobile space, but that is not, I think, our job to determine at this juncture.

I will include a closing reference to the task force as the entity submitting the proposal.

Christopher Zapotocky

________________________________________
From: Spacecadets [spacecadets-bounces at quelab.net<mailto:spacecadets-bounces at quelab.net>] on behalf of dknutson [darrelknutson at sandien.com<mailto:darrelknutson at sandien.com>]
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Space Utilization
Subject: Re: [Spacecadets] Proposed proposal 2.

Hello Chris,

The minutes are from the March meeting and not the April 4th meeting.  The
minutes should say "The Space Cadets met on April 4th and determined that a
proposal needed to be submitted to the Quelab BoD changing out function and
authority.  It was unable to define a consensus on proposal time required
for a rental lease.  Some of the people requesting rental space has changed
and not commitments have been agreed to until after BoD action.  The
attached Proposals are what
the Space Cadets discussed."

Attached is a combination of the two proposals you sent.

Darrel

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher A W Zapotocky
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 6:31 PM
To: spacecadets at quelab.net<mailto:spacecadets at quelab.net>
Subject: [Spacecadets] Proposed proposal 2.

As before send me thoughts, comments, and recommendations on the attached
proposal.

Christopher Zapotocky

_______________________________________________
Spacecadets mailing list
Spacecadets at quelab.net<mailto:Spacecadets at quelab.net>
http://pepper.quelab.net/mailman/listinfo/spacecadets
_______________________________________________
Spacecadets mailing list
Spacecadets at quelab.net<mailto:Spacecadets at quelab.net>
http://pepper.quelab.net/mailman/listinfo/spacecadets

_______________________________________________
Spacecadets mailing list
Spacecadets at quelab.net
http://pepper.quelab.net/mailman/listinfo/spacecadets