Sehvilla is right (was Re: [Imc] twisted locks, twisted security)

[Mike Lehman]

Russ,
I'm sorry, but we don't have an "innie", where the door bar you describe
would be of help. We have a commercial "outie" swinging door, so, once
again, we are dealing with something that really has no easy or cheap
solution to securing the present front door in the way it has been
demanded.

For Everyone Concerned:
Just to go over a couple of points that still seem to have escaped those
making these demands, and then to go on to a possible solution:

I. The front door is going to be replaced. The mechanism is special and
costly. And contrary to what some believe, I think it IS the mechanism,
not the door frame. Any repair will have a very short useful life,
making it uneconomic, EVEN IF WE HAD THE MONEY TO DO SO (which we really
don't).

II. We have operated for a whole year before this became an issue. I
(and probably the rest of the Steering group) want to know "What has
changed?" recently to make this an issue all of the sudden.

A. Have there been some personal concerns that have recently made people
fearful around the IMC? We have not been presented with anything of the
kind. I know there were some recent issues with non-members having
access to members-only equipment in the afterhours timeframe. Is this
related? Is it something/someone else? The Steering group should be made
aware of this, if that is actually a problem. You don't have to do this
on e-mail or even at a meeting, but we DO need to know if that is the
case. You can't solve a people problem by a mechanical replacement.

B. If this has been occassioned by a simple desire to work afterhours at
the IMC...well, this has been allowed in the past, as long as people
were responsible for their own being there. Anything else will take
increased use of IMC resources, whether staff, money, or what have you
(as in simply keeping the lights on late.) NO ONE HAS MADE SUCH A
PROPOSAL to the Steering group. Please elaborate, in person or
otherwise, the case for us allocating scarce resources to such a new
expansion of IMC service, in light of the points I have made above (and
the accomodations that Paul R., among others, has offered), which has so
far not been addressed in detail by those making these demands. That is
only fair to all the other people asking for important things at the
IMC. And there are a bunch, which it seems like some are not aware of,
being concerned with only what they desire for themselves. This is not
to put down any request that something as basic as feeling secure is
somehow not important enough to us, but only to note that there are a
number of things on our plate currently and that to be fair to all we
must balance our limited resources to accomodate as many as possible.

III. The biggest of many projects at the moment is the back-back room
(we have to give it a better name, when we get a chance.) This project
is crucial to the financial viability of the IMC. It requires us to put
into it a certain minimum amount of resources just to get it up and
going. And it will probably demand even more as we find out everything
that needs done to make it a viable, safe venue in itself. Among the
issues is the door back there, a rear entrance to the building...

IV. Which brings us to a viable suggestion of how we might be able to
solve this in the shortrun. Whoever is using the IMC afterhours could
possibly be given a key to that door for such access, which will be able
to lock it from the inside (this dooor will be staying, so it will rate
the kind of investment that the soon-to-be-replaced front door does not)
once we are sure that it works as we need it to to accomodate things.
Please be aware that any such move:

A. Won't happen tomorrow and probably not next week either. You are
going to have to display a bit more patience with things than has so far
been exhibited for this to happen.

B. The front door will REMAIN an issue, until it is repalced in the
renovation. It still must NOT EVER BE LOCKED FROM THE INSIDE. PERIOD.
Until and unless something changes, simply don't do it.
The lack of cooperation on this issue in regard to something that should
have been plainly understood because it was clearly communicated several
times has not made the issue any easier to resolve and that is NOT the
Steering group's fault, to say the least.

C. Such a proposal is contingent on future cooperation, for the good of
the entire IMC, on the part of all concerned with certain rules and
understandings that, while they are compromises, they are the best we
can do until a sugar daddy comes along to fund all our dreams. It will
also require any person so using the IMC to NEVER, ever let someone in
through the front door, if they've come in the back, as that will do
exactly the same thing to the lock as has happened from those simply
locking the door from the inside. And if we can't get some cooperation
on this now, then I have my doubts that such cooperation will work once
we get backdoor access enabled.
(wearing his asbestos underwear)
Mike Lehman

Russell A Rybicki wrote:
> 
> At the risk of giving Mike L. more tasks, sorry Mike, could we build a
> pole that we could wedge between the door handle and the floor to
> effectively "lock" the door from the inside.  I've seen something like
> this in the Harriet Carter catalog, and I don't know how well it will
> work, but it might be a solution until the door gets fixed.