next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi all, On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Peter Morgan wrote: > >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. I've added the above to the Action plan document. Peter M: is this what you had in mind? BTW, when the files in /Chebucto were first created (I don't know by who) all the Board Committee Directories were first created along a standard template of: Terms of Reference; Members; Action Plan, etc. Some Committees really filled these out (and added many other documents). Others didn't. Hence there are such empty files sitting around. Nota bene: it would be worthwhile for committees to examine some of these documents and revise accordingly. For instance, in some cases the Terms of Reference are fantastically out-dated, reflecting goals of the CFN back in 1993 or 94. These are supposed to be our 'public face' to the world vix the organization of the CCN. > >What is the vision for CCN's future? > > See my lengthy sig file for our current mission statement! This is also located at: file://localhost/csuite/info/Chebucto/newmission.html > >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. True enough, however, as the IP Committee has repeatedly underscored, it is our belief, based on our experience with and knowledge of our IP base that such such a pricing tier will not result in net revenue gains for the CCN: rather the opposite. In our view they are unaffordable to the vast majority of our consitituency. Moreover, beyond the NDP caucaus I don't know of any IP who has come onstream at this fee structure in the past six months. More modest fees (setup costs + circa $100 - $150/month) are much more apt to be affordable and have a much better chance at actually generating real (rather than hypothetical) revenue. Pricing is the Board's perogative, but this is the frequently stated position of the IP Committee. Despite my misgivings I'll be happy to promote this pricing structure and I'll be the happiest person imaginable if it brings the CCN a windfall. However, I see no indication of this over the past half year and at some point I think that Board should revue the situation and if this is not working, make a change. > >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. As Editor-in-Chief I and the other CCN Editors are a sub-group of the IP Committee. This has always been the case and is made clear in the Editorial Policy: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Policy/IP/Editors/editorial_policy.html A document which was ratified by the CCN Board. The IP Committee has not ceased to exist in the minds and hearts of all of its members and I cannot imagine from what basis this conclusion has been drawn. We contine to meet, correspond and deal with issues on a daily basis. Barring the Technical Committee it is probably the most active committee on the CCN. > 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. This is so, but there never really has been, and in a real sense the IPs are a third party to the CCN. There is a list <ccn-ipe> that includes people who used to meet (monthly!) and discuss issues and topics of mutual interest. There's no reason this couldn't be revived, however, even in its prime it included only a fraction of IP Editors. Be that as it may, this is and has been a seperate group from the IP Committee. > 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. Having said this, if the Board really wants to re-organize along different lines, fine. However, the various working units within the CCN need to be included in consultation in such a reorganization process if you don't want to alienate the many volunteers who slog away keeping the wheels rolling. :-> Cheers! Chris _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html "We have ... in this country ... far too many captive editors who cannot even be heard to rattle their chains." -- Carl E. Lindstrom _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects