[SJAAboard] Loaner program discussion

[Gary Mitchell]

Rob Hawley (SJAA) wrote:

> My own list has a slightly different motivation then others.  I am not as
> convinced as others that the program as currently structured is flawed.  The
> program has worked for many years. Anyone that does not want to store a scope
> returns it. The other members are happy to contribute to the club.  The present
> method neither requires expensive storage nor places a further burden on those
> running the club.  While from the outside it looks messy, it does work and
> allows us to maintain a larger and more varied inventory.
> 
> When I look at the inventory what I still see is a program that grew by
> accreting other's cast offs.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.  You keep regarding donated
scopes too harshly.  True, sometimes people donate (i.e. get rid
of) scopes that aren't so great, but not always.  We've already
weeded out most of the bad ones, haven't we?

>    Over the past year we have shown we are willing to
> get rid of the scopes that are just not working.  I believe there are still a
> number of scopes that do not belong in the program either because they are
> unlikely to be used or will disappoint the loanee.  I also believe the program
> has some holes that need we need to fill to make it well reasoned program.
> 
> Those discussions will be more difficult. While Gary's goals fulfill a missing
> external statement of what the program's goals are, they do not answer questions
> such as whether we should eliminate scopes that require AC power.

My proposed "statement of purpose" was never intended to
answer all questions, but it lays the foundation.  It's an
attempt to at least get us all on the same page, otherwise
we're all thinking different things about what would be a
good or bad scope for the program.

For example, if the program is just to get beginners started,
then the solar scope is inappropriate and should be removed.
But if the program is also for experienced members, then
that's different, the solar scope is a very nice addition.

> I agree with
> Rich that in the end we will simply have to look at each scope individually.

Of course, especially if it isn't a "junk scope."

Gary