RFC: Non-hive owned tools at the space

In a nutshell, what I propose is that all non-consumable tools/equipment left at the space be accounted for in the form of a lease between the space and the member.

Lately, there have been some serious issues with tools owner by members left at the space. I’ve had what I think is the solution for a while, but I’ve not had the time to put it together and write it up nicely.

Some talking points:
-Having a lease makes it explicit whom is responsible for supplies, maintenance, repairs, upkeep. Let’s face it - tools at the hive often break and it’s critical to know who is responsible.
-Having a lease guarantees that the lessor (the space) is guaranteed access to the tool for a specified period of time and that members will not remove them at a whim.
-If the space buys supplies, repairs or improves equipment, having a guaranteed term ensures the space can benefit from money it invests in a piece of equipment

-Equipment can be leased for money in the event that members do not want to donate / let the space borrow for free
-Equipment can be leased for a penny in lieu of donation / letting the space just borrow stuff.
-If we stick to this, all tools at the hive will be available for use by members in a clear, known manner. There will be no more fiascos where equipment is stuck in the space with questionable ownership and taking up space without being useful and available to members.
-While I’ve modeled the examples off materials currently in use by other companies/entities, it probably would be worth having an attorney review this if we’re going to stick with it.

I’m going to attach two documents:

  1. A generic equipment lease, a framework intended for future use https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TrBLvzE7Wn2xA5klS2JCNFu6n_2DEDKnVHpu_pO2Zrw/edit?usp=sharing

  2. A specific lease for the Monoprice 3D printer I currently have on long-term loan to the space

Cliff notes for MY proposed lease of Monoprice 3D printer currently at space:
6 month lease from 1/1/17 to 6/30/17, $0.01 (yes, a penny), Hive has buyout option for $100 at end, I’m responsible for installing/removing, hive not required to train/certify (for me / lease purposes, at least), equipment offered in good condition, hive13 responsible for maintenance, hive13 not responsible for replacement in event of total loss, 30 days notice to terminate, automatic monthly renewal of agreement at end unless notice of termination given.

I would like several things voted on:

  1. Adoption of my specific lease
  2. Approval for policy requiring any tools valued at more than $100 or specifically requested by COO or area warden not owned by Hive13 be covered under a lease.
  3. Adoption of the general equipment lease proposed, pending review by an attorney.
  4. Approval of up to $150 for attorney review of agreement

I expect that there needs to be discussion of this and so I request that this NOT be brought up for immediate vote. I was thinking at least two weeks be allowed for discussion prior to a formal vote so that comments and revisions can be made, if deemed necessary.


Oh yeah, both documents are open for Comments but closed for edits, for the time being. I don’t know how to use google docs well enough to enable fancier editing. If someone wants to show me, I can do it.

Seems decent, two comments:

  1. Why is there a buy out option? Seems like we’d probably be better actually buying something outright, or not. Further it seems like it would be a separate discussion.
  2. Why is the replacement by the Hive an option? Seems like we’d want to decide once for all tools if we’re going to replace them when they’re here or not.

Finally, I’m not sure who would be responsible for approving/negotiating the terms. Seems like for simple stuff it would be easier to have the COO/President just approve the cheap ones, put the more expensive ones up for a vote.

  1. Buy out option exists to cover the scenario:
    a. member loans tool to the space, few people care at first
    b. over time, tool gets used lots and becomes valable asset
    c. space invests major funds in tool maintenance, repair, upgrades
    d. member decides they don’t want to continue loan
    e. buyout exists as a way for space to protect investment rather than having to lose costs of maintenance and upgrades
    an example that comes to mind of how this would have been useful would be the gigabot, if anyone remembers the saga of it becoming hive property.

  2. The replacement option exists more as a “do I Member expect the hive to replace my loaned item if someone destroys it or not” Perhaps language could be more clear?

  3. Procedurally, I would suggest that a member would be responsible for “circling and filling in blanks” and then bring the proposed lease to the COO, who would decide to either approve it on the spot (and as an officer of the corporation, sign it legally?) or put it out for a vote at a weekly meeting if he/she didn’t want to sign it.


Sorry, let me be clearer. I understand what you’re trying to do. My response is lets either have this be that ALL items are replaced by the Hive, or not, and not have this be an option for each and every lease. The other option would be to say that replacement is at the owner’s discretion. I don’t see any advantage to doing it one way in some cases, and another way in others. Pick one, and let’s keep it simple. Personally I think the Hive should be responsible for replacement, since the Hive is gaining the use of the tool.

I guess I’ll disagree. Let’s say that I was going to loan the hive a bona fide victorian tea set, for some god forsaken reason. This is something:
a. expensive
b. extremely fragile
c. likely to get destroyed at a hackerspace

If the hive is responsible for replacing such an item, there is no way as a member I would vote to approve a lease for it. If, on the other hand, the hive did NOT have to assume the liability associated with its replacement, that would significantly affect how I would feel about voting a lease for such an item.

I think it is worth leaving the door open for things to be at the hive solely at the member’s risk, rather than having the space having an obligation to replace everything.


Thanks Dave for putting this together. This framework looks good to me (although I don’t speak much legalize…) and i’ll be voting YES!

RE replacement option: I understand the desire to avoid unneeded complexity, but I do think that flexibility for different loaned objects would be good in this case.

I do think we need to clarify who on the Hive13 side is responsible for OK’ing leases. COO, other hive leadership, membership vote?


If the hive is responsible for replacing such an item, there is no way as a member I would vote to approve a lease for it. If, on the other hand, the hive did NOT have to assume the liability associated with its replacement, that would significantly affect how I would feel about voting a lease for such an item.

I guess I’m just thinking this is just common practice. When I loan something I expect to get it back in the shape it was in when I loaned it out. If I don’t care if it gets damaged or not, maybe I should be giving the item away instead?

I think it is worth leaving the door open for things to be at the hive solely at the member’s risk, rather than having the space having an obligation to replace everything.

Fair enough, I can see your point in this, I just thought it might be something worth discussing.

Once again, thanks for doing the work to get this together, I think it’s an excellent idea, and shows a lot of work and planning. Even if we different slightly on the implementation, I think this is a very good execution, and I’d like to see this go forward.

Thank you for bringing constructive criticism to the table, Andrew. If I had all the answers, the hive would be my dictatorship and it would be perfect. That’s obviously not the case soooooo. :slight_smile:

Dave B for Caesar!

All joking aside, I’m wondering if we want to do a transition on the tools that are currently at the Hive. Say a month or two during which owners could submit leases, after which we could ask them to take them home? Maybe we could make up a boiler plate lease which basically has the current assumptions about tools at the Hive already filled out?

I thinking this pretty much covers the current arrangement:

  1. Lease Term - "Present - "
  2. Lease Payments “0”
  3. Equipment Buyout “will not”
  4. As designated in the wiki
  5. “will not”

What is the advantage of another 3D printer? And where would it fit?

3D print jobs can take hours, multiple at once can be ran.
On top of the rack in fab lab is my guess.

It’s not terribly large. Smaller than a cubic foot? I’m more than willing to take it home but I thought its presence might be helpful to the community. It’s relatively simple to operate and is fully functional currently, thanks to Mike+Tiff’s work on it prior to it coming to the space.

There is plenty of room in the fab lab on the shelves (since I cleaned them) for the various 3d printers. Personally, seeing as we haven’t had a reliable working 3d printer in well over 6months if not longer, I’m not sure why we are questioning this. having a small reliable 3d printer available for people to learn on seems like a no brainer.

Besides allowing multiple people printing at the same time, the 3D printers have non-overlapping capabilities. Different max print size, allowable plastic types, etc. Different tools for different jobs. the wiki could use some updating…hmm i think i just volunteered myself…

Anyway, this is kind of derailing Dave’s original topic :slight_smile:


Also varying degrees of unforgiving-ness.

One of the things I’m asking to be voted on is MY PARTICULAR LEASE. The merits of the equipment should factor into this.