Sharing Productive Capital Project (SPCP)

Sharing Productive Capital Project (SPCP) Minutes from Planning Meeting

Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010 Location: Craik Eco-centre, Craik, Saskatchewan Time: 6:00 to 7:40 p.m.

Note: Action items are in Bold.

1. Introductions and welcome

Each individual introduced themselves and said a bit about there background and their involvement in the SPCP, the Craik Sustainable Living Project, and the Craik eco-village (e.g. there respective homes they have built or are building).

Roger Petry – [email protected]: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Luther College at the U of R and Co-coordinator, RCE Saskatchewan

Daryl Hepting – [email protected]: Associate Professor of Computer Science, University of Regina and Co-ordinator, RCE Saskatchewan Farming and Local Food Production Working Group

Tim Maciag – [email protected]: doctoral student in Computer Science at the U of R and RCE Student Researcher and webmaster

Brent Kreuger – [email protected]:Praxis International Institute, Craik (initially building a campus to house 200 students)

Kelly Taylor- Faye – [email protected]: Riverstone Studios, Craik

Tom Elliot – [email protected]: Craik Resident for 2 years and Moose Jaw electronics technician

Carole-Anne Elliot – [email protected]: Craik Resident (Tom's wife), mother of 4 and teaching background

Shirley Eade – [email protected]: Craik Sustainable Living Project

Paul Stinson – [email protected]: Craik resident who has built an off the grid home with his wife Chystal

Glenn Hymers – [email protected]: Craik Sustainable Living Project and retired teacher Arlin Daniel—[email protected]: (present by Skype) Graduate student in Philosophy at the University of Ottawa; RCE Student research on Sharing Productive Capital Project and worked at U of R to helped prepare application to the Research Development Initiative

Additional members of the RCE SK “Sharing Productive Capital” theme area working group unable to attend:

Austin Eade – [email protected] Crystal Stinson – [email protected] Audrey Taylor-Faye – [email protected] Volker Greifenhagen – [email protected]: Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Luther College at the U of R Robert Regnier-- [email protected]: Professor of Education (Educational Foundations), U of S

2. Project overview and update from April 2009 Roger, Daryl, Arlin, and Glenn reviewed the following highlights since last year's meeting in April, 2009. Development of Applications to the Research Development Initiatives Fund ○October 2009, Ranked 46th of 123 projects; top 24 projects able to be funded ○April 2010 reapplication to RDI Fund ■Additional support letters from: Community Research Unit (CRU), University of Regina, Saskatchewan United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), Yokohama, Japan ■results to be announced June 30, 2010 Presentation of paper at the International Symposium of Environmental Software System (Venice, Italy, October 6-9, 2010) ○liberating lawn mowers; interest; a group in Italy who have a structure for sharing property in the community; a lot of interest; interst from a technical Financial Support from University of Regina President's Research Fund (Summer 2010) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council: 4A designation reapplied; applied to President's Fund/SSHRC fund: $5000 for work over summer Presentation at 5th International RCE Conference of the Americas, May 18-20, 2010 (Curitiba, Brazil) ○Interest and support from RCE Kano (Nigeria (new project possibility with sharing tools for youth in urban areas)), RCE Trang (Thailand), RCE Guatamala, RCE Curitiba (Brazil), RCE Porto (Portugal) Meeting with Lesley Hindle, Regina Downtown Business Improvement District (interest in sharing equipment for downtown festivals) Meeting with Claire Kirkland, Regina Regional Opportunities Commission (developing greenhouse proposal with schools) Glenn indicated he had made his own list of equipment that he would put into the database that people could have access to The following discussion ensued:  Size of Group Participating: A question was raised about how large a circle of people would be involved. The community would potentially include Craik and surrounding area; it would be up to the community of users to determine eligibility for participation.

 Volunteer Management: A question was raised whether the software would enable the participation of volunteers volunteering skills and talents (e.g., a plumber to help volunteer his or her time); If volunteer management software is used for the Sharing Productive Capital Project (SPCP), this functionality would automatically be enabled.

 Sharing Materials: A question was raised whether there would be a place for sharing materials (e.g., excess items that others could use such as Bricks, wood, fuel, etc.). This would be like sharing equipment except the items would be used up by their use.

 Damaged Equipment and Maintenance: A question was raised about about what occurs with damaged equipment. It was noted that we would need to monitor the health of the item. Building up an idea of care is enabled by thinking of the object as a citizen with inherent dignity and worth. Could include details in the database about how many hours it is used and also include data about maintenance (for example, how often, for example, we need to change the oil in the hydrolic lift or how often to replace the batteries in the scissor lift); can see this provision of fuel and oil akin to feeding a human being. Individuals could volunteer to maintain and repair equipment or one could donate to maintenance fund (e.g. re. oil use). Could also have conditions set by the community (e.g., items using gas, such as a gas air compressor, are always returned with the gas tank full; if one damages equipment one has a responsibility to see that it is repaired back to previous state when rented)

 Training and Specialized Equipment: A question was raised about how to handle more specialized equipment requiring training. Could specify that a particular person need to go with the equipment to be eligible for lending or specify other conditions of use); this mirrors, for example, a pilot needing to be checked out on a piece of equipment before they can use it

 Liabilities and Insurance: A question was raised about insurance and liabilities. Are there occupational health and safety issues? What happens in the case someone is injured and who looks after replacing damaged equipment? It was thought that since individuals weren't employees, this would be more like a situation of rental equipment. One could go to handy rentals/hertz rentals and find out whose is liable; one could sign a similar document as a condition for using equipment in the repository and have this filed with the town office. Daryl noted that Missoula has a truck sharing facility and it was asked how they handle insurance? This could be found out.

 Lack of Local Availability: It was noted the valued of having the SPCP where items can't be rented locally (e.g., a plate packer couldn't be rented here)  Local Storage Facility: The idea of storing equipment in a single place was raised. (for example, a table saw could be stored at a particular point; items are currently stored at the Craik town office for the Craik Sustainable Living Project (CSLP). Building a shared storage facility could be a project for a straw bale workshop (e.g., a community shed build) that allows objects to have homes. Building a common facility with an oil change pit for changing oil in equipment was also noted as a possible project. The SPCP, however, would not require all equipment to be in a single location but would allow equipment to be stored in multiple homes.

 Tax Implications: The question was raised whether there were any legal issues with the SPCP from the perspective of Revenue Canada. We will need to be careful of the structure to ensure it is a question of borrowing of items in a way that it is not a tax issue.

3. Possible Categories for Data Gathering

Roger Petry presented slides prepared by Arlin Daniel highlighting possible types of data that would need to be gathered about the equipment (see end of minutes for list that was presented) Roger highlighted the five areas of equipment sharing that were previously identified in April 2009: (1)Gardening equipment and greenhouse space (2)Construction equipment for eco-friendly building (3)Specialized equipment (4)Outdoor education equipment; ESD equipment; camping equipment and 4h (5)Computer presentation equipment

A number of additional data items were identified:  We should include a photo image of the object (e.g., could make use of profile pictures for users)  Individuals should be able to upload additional attachments (e.g., a jpeg)  Details regarding scheduling of equipment: if I make arrangements to borrow equipment (e.g., for two weeks), can people see that it is not available?  Can we include details about commercial opportunities, e.g., if I have a tractor with implements and would be willing to charge $50/hour to do the work with the tractor; can we have this added in?  People should be able to put out requests for equipment that might not yet be in the database (e.g. one person noted that if they had known someone who had a packer they would have borrowed/rented it (“I couldn't find anyone and didn't know anyone”)  Should be able to have a wishlist: e.g. people are all looking for scaffolding; should be able to suggest the need for an item that is not currently available and find out who else wants the item  The SPCP should be able to show damaged equipment and its schedule for repair (e.g., if more work to don on a tractor, when can you get this fixed?)  The SPCP software should be able to highlight individuals and there various roles (e.g., show who else has a tractor or who do we go to in the community when we have specific needs (e.g. management of the repository)?)  The software should help show what projects can be done with what's available in the repository as well as help identify possible projects which might only have some of the equipment (e.g., I want to do this, what can I do to get the supports?) Community might raise resources to add specific items to the repository (e.g. accepting donations for a specific piece of equipment); noted that scaffolding could be collectively shared—a lot of people are looking for scaffolding from time to time  The software should also document the process used for specific projects (e.g., I have these things I want to do, how do I do it?)  The software should allow you to book people to who have volunteered (e.g., I need x, y, and z; and person a, b, and c); would need to have a calendar function and when people might be willing to be volunteer and in what capacity  The software should include buildings available for sharing for various purposes. One person noted he had a building that he was willing to make available as a shared meeting space.

4. Update on Software Possibilities  The goal is to find software that can be adapted to our use. Tim Maciag provided an update on the Open Source software we are looking at. He noted that Arlin had looked at a variety of software applications. We are considering using CiviCRM that is a module of the Drupal Content Management System.  Tim noted that he and Roger had reviewed possible ways of matching up the data gathering requirements for the equipment and the existing CiviCRM software functionality for managing volunteers.  The Free Software Foundation has included CiviCRM in a list of projects to support where they think there are important gaps  CiviCRM is web-based and tracks individual volunteers, events, and other activities from a person-centric viewpoint;

General Discussion followed:  Starting Small: A question was raised about how many people might join this project and put equipment in the database; it was thought important to start relatively small at the start and then add people over time (it was noted that the start of industrialization also occurred at a small scale in rural areas of of England). Having a core croup from the eco- village was thought to be a good start.  Promoting Repository: Some things could then be done to promote it and make it grow. Could plan for how to engage other people (e.g., need a kick off event; profile it on the CSLP website; promote it to people based on its tangible benefits)  Resistance: Noted that there could be resistance from current vendors and this could be an issue (e.g., Saskatoon companies and businesses such as handy rentals). Noted, however, that there are also companies that already share cars and bikes and existing borrowing relations (i.e., if I borrow your shovel without the software this would still have an impact on rental companies); noted the SPCP would likely a closed group of 15 to 20 members to begin with though it may lead to larger numbers)  Scales of Equipment Use: Noted that use of certain types of equipment occur at different geographic scales (e.g., I won't drive across the city to borrow a hammer; I may borrow a saw); probably the SPCP works best as a neighbourhood set up  Specialized Equipment: Could also be a space for more specialized equipment that is used infrequently and/or is highly specialized (e.g. special chisels for a sidewalk)  Difference from other Software: A question was raised as to why this is different from Microsoft Outlook and other customer relationship management software. It was noted that CiviCRM was Free/Open Source Software that could be loaded online (vs. individual participants needing to purchase Outlook to have access)  Volunteer Software and Citizenship: Noted that by using volunteer software “productive capital as citizen” becomes an automatic way of viewing the objects.  Mobile Phones: Could be good to be able to use a mobile phone with some applications.  Server Hosting: Question of who would host the server for the software. Daryl suggested it could be at the university.  Value of Larger User Base: Noted that if it gets 15 users there is a lot of potential (especially if add more, e.g., 20 users in Davidson; 40 users in Moose Jaw); anybody might be able to view what was in the repository (even if they don't have other user rights); could have interlibrary loans between repositories  Need to make it easy/comfortable for people to enter data.

5. Structure for initial equipment data gathering

 Glenn asked whether or not the group in Craik should give this a try. There was general agreement to continue with the project.  Discussion ensued about how to gather some initial equipment data (e.g., online survey (drupal), civicrm, excel sheet, write an e-mail, fax in a form to someone who could enter it online)?  It was thought an online mechanism would be OK;  Daryl cautioned we don't want to impose a form that doesn't work but need to develop a form that fits the current way of operating/sharing. Suggested that the group needs to think about projects previously worked on and what processes and shared equipment were used for it?  Action Items:  It was agreed that 5 scenario descriptions (preferably one project in each area of equipment sharing) would be written up by the end of July (Glenn and Shirley will do the follow-up on this).  Glenn agreed to send Roger the names and e-mails of those from Craik for the Sharing Productive Capital Theme Area Working Group.  Tim will send out an invitation to each member of the Working Group to join the RCE site and to check of the SPCP working group to share information and developments on the project.  Tim will determine the best way for gathering data and update the group once this is determined (e.g. through CiviCRM or a survey on the RCE website) by the end of July (?); Roger noted the importance of have electronic forms; it was noted the need for pictures and a maximum photo size (preferably one where the photo is automatically shrunk to an appropriate size)

6. Other Business/Next steps/Next Meeting  Roger will inform the group once he hears the results from the application to the Research Development Initiatives Fund.  The group will be informed once there is a space for entering data on equipment available for sharing.

7. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Data Gathering Forms for Sharing Productive Capital Project June 9, 2010 The following tentative lists provide a basis for initial data gathering for the sharing productive capital project. This includes an equipment list (SECTION 1), a project list (SECTION 2), and a participant list (SECTION 3). Sharing Productive Capital Project SECTION 1 List of Equipment available for Sharing in Repository

Kind of item (e.g. rake, shovel, etc.)

Name (nicknames) given to this equipment (if any)?

Any features that personify the item? (e.g., temperament, family history/heirloom, etc.)

Source of manufacture (if known)

Other distinguishing features? (serial number, distinguishing colours, marks, etc.)

Weblink (if any) for further information about item

Age of item

Condition of item (excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor)

Any features currently needing repair

Required maintenance (frequency of maintenance, elements to be maintained)

Home of object/location where it is stored when not in use

What are its uses (if possible, relate to possible projects outlined in SECTION 2)

Does it have any additional possible uses?

Restrictions on when it is used or conditions of use (e.g. weather/temperature)

Is there training required to use this equipment?

If training is required, indicate approximate training time

Current legal owner (to be documented in participant profiles (SECTION 3) below)

Individual entering data (to be documented in participant profiles (SECTION 3) below) Sharing Productive Capital Project SECTION 2: Equipment Sharing Scenarios/Projects

What is the project goal/output being accomplished (e.g., straw bale house, planted garden)?

What equipment is used to accomplish this project goal/output? (Refer to items in SECTION 1 where possible)

Describe how this project goal/output is achieved (i.e., what process(es) is involved?)

Describe any existing sharing practices currently associated with this project goal/output. Sharing Productive Capital Project SECTION 3: Participant Profiles [note: may be able to be catalogued in same way as SECTION 1]

Name

Address

Telephone: (Work, Home, Cell, Fax)

E-mail address

Willingness of Participant to Volunteer in Various Roles:

Donated specific equipment/legal owner of specific equipment (if possible, refer to equipment in SECTION 2)

Monitoring conditions/well-being of equipment in repository

Maintaining specific forms of equipment

Sorting Equipment/cleaning/tidying specific storage locations

Providing repair parts/materials for equipment upkeep and use (e.g. paint, parts, fuel, etc.)

Maintain a “home” for specific equipment in repository

○Conditions for borrowing and returning equipment to this home (e.g., time availability, call ahead, etc.)

Provide training for specific forms of equipment (if possible, refer to equipment in SECTION 2)

Providing technical maintenance and support for software

Member of facilitating team for overall Sharing Productive Capital Project