next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Mark, Thanks for your comments. My responses interspersed. >Some time ago I sent out a note asking about the origins of the >Phoenix WWW-based email service, looking for the rationale, the >decision-making process etc. No reply. (it went out to: Michael , I guess I'd be leary of getting too frustrated by no reply. I suspect everyone means well and gets a huge volume of mail. Other ways to get the answer include sending David Murdoch a personal email as he is the chair of the technical committee and could refer you to someone appropriate. I also suspect David Potter or Michael Kirby would have some thoughts. I suspect tech committee meetings are open and you'd be welcome to pursue people for an answer in person. And finally, you can always send me an email if you feel you have exhausted reasonable means to get an answer on an issue which is of import to you. I actually think I do a rather remarkable job of replying to the email that I get that seems to require an answer. >This dovetails into other questions for which answers don't seem to >be available. I've just attempted to check out the Board's >Minutes.... Am I the only one interested in reading them? The last Michael Colbourne is responsible for this and may be able to explain. I know there were some general issues with mailing lists when the system was upgraded. >Board Minutes linked are for September 17 / 98, and the link still >doesn't work (I've reported this numerous times...). - ah, actually, >it's all links from Sept. - onward. Has there been a board meeting >in 1999 yet? Two actually. Every third Tuesday. Next meeting is this Tues from 6-8pm at the North Branch Library. The meetings are open, with the rare exceptions of some personnel and financial items which we discuss in private. >Page: http://chebucto.ns.ca/Chebucto/FinAdmin/Board-Minutes/index.html > >FYI, the broken link is a missing quotation mark on the HREF link for >Sept.17th (Why does the link text say Sept. 2nd?) > >I also see that the "Current Action Plan" is "under construction". Not my doing. We could delete the link. Chris Majka, does this fall in to your court? >What is CCN's Action Plan? 1. Increase access for individuals focusing particularly on those individuals who would not otherwise have access to the Internet. 2. Increase access and information providing capabilities for organizations focusing particularly on those organizations who would not otherwise have access to the Internet. 3. Sustain the organization through a variety of activities including volunteer development, fundraising, grant applications etc etc. >What is the vision for CCN's future? See my lengthy sig file for our current mission statement! >PPP access -- great idea, if the technical requirements don't >adversely affect system performance. As an IP I am very interested >in obtaining this service for the benefit of my organization. It is available to IP's. >VDNs - A wonderful service, if we can be clear on the $$$$. >$400/year for IPs? Ridiculous! It would make more sense to me if >"IP" were replaced with "Business" for the IP w/VDN, IP w/ basic >Package and IP w/ Network Package categories. But does anyone on the >board seriously think that the IPs we currently have can afford that >cost? I'm _trying_ to convince the executive of the IP I represent >to contribute the $200 fee for just being an IP. It's not an easy >task when organizations that serve the community have programming or >other things on which to spend their dwindling $$$. While the VDN >would be a great boost to our accessibility (I would love to hand out >www.nscuba.org rather than the current URL!), there's no way we can >cover that cost. Well, Mark we're going over well worn territory here but: 1. Existing and future IP's will continue to be asked to make a contribution, but no IP will be turned away for purely financial reasons. This access includes features not available to any organization in Halifax through any ISP. This includes a large hosting capability, mail lists, training and support, etc, etc. The amount of disk space is essentially limited only by reasonableness and the Internet connection upstream is the fastest possible short of being connected via CANARIE III. 2. Virtual Domain Names are a valuable commodity for organizations and individuals. Virtual Domains require setup and on-going maintenance by Chebucto. (I know no one believes me about this, but next year and the next year and the next year IP's of any stripe will still need support and help.) As well, we have to pay for the aforementioned high speed upstream Internet connection, to say nothing of the computers and modems. We are billed almost $2000/month for the access, plus another $2000+ for the 80 odd phone lines we use -- we must therefore, at some point, collect revenue on a recurring basis. Unfortunately, partly because we do not ask, and partly because many of our costs are hidden, IP's in the past have contributed less than 1% to our operating revenue. I would make an argument that they represent more than 1% of our costs. Having said all this, if you feel that a) the scuba society would substantially benefit from a VDN and b) you cannot afford it, pls make a request, in writing, to me and I will take it up with the Board. Assuming the case is made, we'll allocate funds from other areas to cover the cost of providing this. >And, might I add, the perspective of the IP Committee, which is most >certainly NOT inactive, despite the inference of some.... There are two parts to this and email is not the best way to unravel it. There is the Chebucto site and associated lists of resources, some maintained on Chebucto, some elsewhere. I think of this as "our website". This area is currently very capably managed by Chris Majka and the IP-editors. Essentially, Chris functions as our webmaster and reports to the communications committee. The second part is the IP's themselves (185 individuals). My read is that there is currently not a group that truly represents there interests. Many IP-editors also serve as IP's. However, most IP's are not represented by this. Better souls than I have tried to unravel this and continue to do so. More work is clearly needed. My sense if that we need to separate out the website and its links from the IP organizations. >I see CCN as facilitating the provision of Community-org information >online. That is what (hopefully) attracts visitors to our site: our >_content_. As much as we must fulfil the mandate of being an access >resource for low-tech, low-income communty members/organizations, we Agreed 100% Mark. The only catch is that, as one who is requesting a VDN, you represent the contradiction. Being a resource for low-tech and providing text-only