Admin Action Work List

Here’s a list of things that we’d like to change in the discourse wikis that take admin actions. This started as @asander1 and @kyle tried to make the tools page easier to navigate and understand where the current induction wait list was for each tool. Hopefully we can spread the admin load around a bit if these things interest you.

  • Create tools pages for all tools - this lets us indicate model numbers / manuals as well as a definitive place to see which induction (or no induction) is required. Future goals might include service logs in a collapsed section or QR codes on tools.

  • Move Risk Assesments to Tools pages - some have already undergone this. Table saw is a good example of incorporating induction requirements, RA, and induction course material for referencing back. Great to make sure the safety rules are all agreed upon. Let’s discuss if this is not the right format for us.

  • Update tools index - Let’s get some of those hidden away tools on there

  • Add to the tool index page header something that says “Many tools require an induction or are covered by the general woodworking induction” or something similar?

  • Add link from jig saw to general woodworking induction

  • Can we consolidate enough knowledge to start a “Raw Material Sourcing” wiki page? That was something I definitely wondered about over the past few months. Include Wood sheet products/finishing timber, Hardwood, Metal square tube/angle iron, Fabric, T-shirts, Raspi/Arduino stuff, …?

2 Likes

@kyle - it is NOW an actual Wiki - try again!?

2 Likes

Done. Great, work item removed.

2 Likes

I am struggling to edit the RA posts - to copy the contents… hmmmm

1 Like

Figured it out…

2 Likes

Hi – RA posts are populated from the GitHub account, and are (or were intended to be?) dynamically updated, and automatically formatted

It’s worth looking at this to see if it’s a useful tool: it seems to have caused confusion in the past, but I don’t think it was properly documented

Worth considering if including RA hurts the readability of a tool page too (although it needs to be easy to find)

Hi Dermot!

The current situation with RAs is we have a copy in GitHub, which may or may not be replicated in Discourse in the RA category… Then we have RAs on the tool pages which are not lined at all to any of this as far as I can tell.

The reason to put RAs in GitHub it for collaborative editing and version control/tracking. Which Discourse on its own does out of the box.

So unless there is a better idea - we are working on consolidating RAs to the tools pages - with the following benefits:

  • A single source of truth for RAs
  • Version Control is built in
  • When you learn about a tool / do an induction it is front and centre otherwise it will get skipped
  • Accessible to non-coders - we don’t even know how to access to GitHub

Cheers,
Andy

Thanks, but making a substantive change to Discourse organisation should discussed more widely and agreed first

RAs are of course key from legal and H&S angles, so this is an important issue for @directors who have ultimate legal responsibility

With the RA only existing as part of the tool page can you track RA edits separately from tool page edits?

Can accidental edits be avoided? Tool pages can be edited by any member I think, but RAs shouldn’t be editable outside review

My work instinct is that RAs have to be standalone documents easily accessed (but don’t know if this is a legal requirement, or just common practice)

Does having RA in full on a tool page create s pressure for brevity? It’s essential during the process for a wide range of hazards to be considered and assessed, but the reader of a tool page only needs to see the relevant hazards, risks and mitigations that the RA outputs. Members don’t need to see the workings out, but best practice is that we can demonstrate that risks were considered before being dismissed. Considering injury from the tool falling might make an assessor of the metal lathe chuckle, and clearly has no use on tool page, it might lead them to consider the hazard of dropping a chuck or other parts

I agree the GitHub route is a barrier to entry BTW, but it would be good to hear what the arguments for it are – can you set it up to nag you for yearly review for example?

GitHub saved our skin this year as it turned out all the previous RAs were created and stored in s member’s Google Drive…and at some point they deleted it…schoolkid errors…so we should definitely have these backed up!

This is an opportunity to rationalise a system that has become a little splintered, improve templates and collate best practice…and it’s excellent to see high quality tool pages such as those for the table saw and metal lathe setting a benchmark

P.S.the WiKi functionality of Discourse has been criticised heavily in the past, has this improved?

Hi Dermot!

First let me start by saying - I don’t care where we keep RAs, but let’s make it clear to everyone.
Bunch of comments in-line…

Thanks, but making a substantive change to Discourse organisation should discussed more widely and agreed first
- Fair enough, I had discussions with some members and Discourse admins and changes were made after comments from new members who can’t find even basic information, like what is an induction and how do I get one.

RAs are of course key from legal and H&S angles, so this is an important issue for @directors who have ultimate legal responsibility
- Understood, then this process and where we keep them should be well documented - is it? In 5 yrs I haven’t seen anything telling me as a Tech or Member where these are to be kept…

With the RA only existing as part of the tool page can you track RA edits separately from tool page edits?
- No

Can accidental edits be avoided? Tool pages can be edited by any member I think, but RAs shouldn’t be editable outside review
- No, but it is versioned, so if an accidental edit is made you can roll back the change

My work instinct is that RAs have to be standalone documents easily accessed (but don’t know if this is a legal requirement, or just common practice)
- This would have been great to know months ago :slight_smile: I spent a long time writing the RA for CNC and the Table Saw on the tools pages (because that was the only place I had ever seen them) for each, which you signed off on both and no one ever mentioned that there was an another repository of RAs elsewhere…

Does having RA in full on a tool page create s pressure for brevity? It’s essential during the process for a wide range of hazards to be considered and assessed, but the reader of a tool page only needs to see the relevant hazards, risks and mitigations that the RA outputs. Members don’t need to see the workings out, but best practice is that we can demonstrate that risks were considered before being dismissed. Considering injury from the tool falling might make an assessor of the metal lathe chuckle, and clearly has no use on tool page, it might lead them to consider the hazard of dropping a chuck or other parts
- I don’t think it does and haven’t been brief at all on the RAs I have worked on, and put on the tools pages, again no one has mentioned that the full RA should not be on the tools page and that there was another version kept elsewhere

I agree the GitHub route is a barrier to entry BTW, but it would be good to hear what the arguments for it are – can you set it up to nag you for yearly review for example?
- Have we ever done yearly reviews of RAs? Who even has access to GitHub?? Regardless of technology reviews can be arranged if it is something we want to do,

GitHub saved our skin this year as it turned out all the previous RAs were created and stored in s member’s Google Drive…and at some point they deleted it…schoolkid errors…so we should definitely have these backed up!
- Agreed, we need backups of all our hard work, regardless of tech used!

This is an opportunity to rationalise a system that has become a little splintered, improve templates and collate best practice…and it’s excellent to see high quality tool pages such as those for the table saw and metal lathe setting a benchmark

  • Yes - let’s fix it! I don’t care the final outcome as long as it is clear and documented, here are the issues I currently see:
  • We have multiple conflicting RAs in up to 4 places:
    • Tools pages
    • RA Category on Discourse
    • GitHub
    • Google Docs??
      - It is totally unclear which one is the right one, who has access, or that we need 2 different versions (risk one and tools one?) do we? - I was just creating one version for each tool
  • Because it is unclear most of the inductions never in my experience reference an ‘official’ signed off version, they just go through what is on the tools page - is this an issue?
  • The RA category doesn’t even have a description of what it is for and none of them are cross linked at all to the tools they are for

P.S.the WiKi functionality of Discourse has been criticised heavily in the past, has this improved?
- I think it works great!

Let me know if you want to do a brainstorming call to discuss more and come up with a proposed solution… We just need to standardise on something and document it so Directors, Techs and Members know what is where and the process of making changes.

Cheers,
Andy

2 Likes

Can I add to that that if we use Google Drive as a back up we should do that in an admin account or the directors account these would be accessible by multiple people and long standing even after the people who have originally worked on this might not be members anymore.

1 Like

Yes, this was a staggering misstep, but these things happen

Let’s have a chat, or a group Zoom

The RAs ended up in a real tangle for various reasons and need sorting so they work for us in future: they’re kind of a foundation in my view of things and a lot stems from them

1 Like

Sounds good I will give you a ring to discuss and we can engage a wider group if needed!

1 Like