You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIRC, members have been obliged to host people all these while. Just
that it is ad-hoc and informal at the moment.
Yeah, do it. Each of us has different writing styles.
On 19/11/15 11:35 AM, Valentine C wrote:
Are members obliged to host people now?
Some style consistency will be good. I'll see if I can improve on the
answer soon.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
d915f0a#commitcomment-14490168.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It should certainly be at the discretion of members present. Inviting
people to enquire on the mailing list / FB page / IRC channel first
about whether/when they can visit would seem appropriate. We don't
employ a receptionist or venue manager, it feels unreasonable to burden
any member present in the space with unwelcome host duties. Suggesting
an appointment also makes clear __whose__ guest a particular visitor is.
This is similar to the requirement for an event host to remain in the
space until the last guest has left, rather than dumping the guests on
other members who happen to be present.
- Roland
On 11/19/2015 11:38 AM, Robert Sim wrote:
IIRC, members have been obliged to host people all these while. Just
that it is ad-hoc and informal at the moment.
Yeah, do it. Each of us has different writing styles.
On 19/11/15 11:35 AM, Valentine C wrote:
> Are members obliged to host people now?
>
> Some style consistency will be good. I'll see if I can improve on the
> answer soon.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
>
> d915f0a#commitcomment-14490168.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
d915f0a#commitcomment-14490185.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do on occassions that there are walk-in visitors who have no prior
contact with us, be it email, Facebook or other channels.
Also, there are visitors who left messages on FB page, which are usually
responded by me to tell them to come as per the faq. This isn't
transparent to other members since not all members are admins to the
page. There weren't issues of them being hosted by me for most of the
ime, but since I am not at the space during the day any longer, to other
members, these visitors are 'first touch'.
So, whose guests are these then? Surely we are not going to turn away
them saying that 'you are not welcome since there is no member who wants
to entertain you.'?
let's skip the event host part. it is another can of worms.
Robert
On 19/11/15 1:26 PM, Roland Turner wrote:
It should certainly be at the discretion of members present. Inviting
people to enquire on the mailing list / FB page / IRC channel first
about whether/when they can visit would seem appropriate. We don't
employ a receptionist or venue manager, it feels unreasonable to burden
any member present in the space with unwelcome host duties. Suggesting
an appointment also makes clear __whose__ guest a particular visitor is.
This is similar to the requirement for an event host to remain in the
space until the last guest has left, rather than dumping the guests on
other members who happen to be present.
- Roland
On 11/19/2015 11:38 AM, Robert Sim wrote:
> IIRC, members have been obliged to host people all these while. Just
> that it is ad-hoc and informal at the moment.
>
> Yeah, do it. Each of us has different writing styles.
>
> On 19/11/15 11:35 AM, Valentine C wrote:
>
> > Are members obliged to host people now?
> >
> > Some style consistency will be good. I'll see if I can improve on the
> > answer soon.
> >
> > —
> > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
>
> d915f0a#commitcomment-14490168.
>
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
>
> d915f0a#commitcomment-14490185.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
d915f0a#commitcomment-14491163.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On 11/19/2015 01:35 PM, Robert Sim wrote:
We do on occassions that there are walk-in visitors who have no prior
contact with us, be it email, Facebook or other channels.
True. I did say "suggesting an appointment", rather than requiring one.
Also, there are visitors who left messages on FB page, which are usually
responded by me to tell them to come as per the faq. This isn't
transparent to other members since not all members are admins to the
page.
Indeed. It had occurred to me to suggest turning off the ability to send
private messages to the page, the point being that the would-be visitor
should be enquiring to the membership, not to "the people in charge",
the issue being that there aren't any in the usual sense. This is
perhaps a separate discussion.
So, whose guests are these then? Surely we are not going to turn away
them saying that 'you are not welcome since there is no member who wants
to entertain you.'?
I would suggest that that's exactly what we should be saying: if there's
no-one in the space, or no-one in the space who wishes to host a
visitor, then presumably the visitor shouldn't be in the space?
let's skip the event host part. it is another can of worms.
No problem, I was merely drawing an analogy.
- Roland
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On 11/19/2015 11:38 AM, Robert Sim wrote:
IIRC, members have been obliged to host people all these while. Just
that it is ad-hoc and informal at the moment.
There has never been any such agreement. There have been specific
agreements to the contrary.
- Roland
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There has never been any such agreement. There have been specific
agreements to the contrary.
As I said, ad-hoc. You don't see people getting turned away just because
they walk in without prior appointment. Not at least the time for I have
spent at the space for the past couple of years. You should spend some
time during the weekdays in the space. Why? Cuz there is at least one
member (may not be me since I am not always at the door) who is willing
to host them.
Do show the specific agreements to the contrary. No, wait, don't. This
PR is to at least make the opening hours clearer in the FAQ. If you
think the language needs to be changed, do it directly and commit it
instead of going on here. I have no qualms of the text being changed
arbitrarily by anyone. On a side note, I still have #119 opened as well
and I have yet to recieve feedback from the last changes.
Robert
On 19/11/15 6:26 PM, Roland Turner wrote:
On 11/19/2015 11:38 AM, Robert Sim wrote:
> IIRC, members have been obliged to host people all these while. Just
> that it is ad-hoc and informal at the moment.
There has never been any such agreement. There have been specific
agreements to the contrary.
- Roland
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
d915f0a#commitcomment-14495661.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are members obliged to host people now?
Some style consistency will be good. I'll see if I can improve on the answer soon.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
d915f0aThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.