next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
(for those that don't proceed to completion, why it is On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Christopher Majka wrote: > 4) In any event the IPDB (useful as it is) doesn't really have the data to > allow an analysis since: > > a) Over the years I have purged the vast majority of inappropriate, > defunct, expired, duplicate, test, etc. applications; > So you're saying that since the numbers are in fact worse than I noted (i.e. more IPs have left the IPdb entirely and their records purged), that no analysis of the existing records is worthwhile. Interesting reasoning. > b) The status categories that are available to indicate the fate of an IP > are both inadequate in (in some instances) don't really correspond with > the way we manage our IPs. They are: trained; withdrawn; inactive; active; > static; moving; moved; removed. 'Static' doesn't exist. We've never used > 'moving' . I'm not sure what 'removed' could mean. Applications that are > 'withdrawn' are usually purged from the IPDB. Other potentially useful > designations don't exist. These consequence is that these status > categories have been used inconsistently, and incompletely if (in some > cases) at all. 'Removed' is just that. There is no IP site and the IP is listed as (and I quote) removed. 'Moved' is listed in the IPdb for some of the sites which have gone to other non-CCN servers and I also counted those sites which are no longer on CCN servers but were not listed as such in the IPdb as being in this category. The fact that the IPdb is virtually impossible to get data from would in most organizations be considered a Bad Thing. That you can consider this as rationale for keeping it the way it is can once again only be considered as interesting reasoning. > This might be a very interesting topic of inquiry either through the > creation of a questionnaire or a mailout to all-ips + former/non IPs. If > we got a reasonable rate of response we might have some useful information > to evaluate what the good and bad features of the IP process are. Anyone > want to take this on? If this is what it takes to prove the point that falling numbers plus lower retention rate of those who do apply means that perhaps something is wrong and needs fixing, then fire away. You send me the contact information of every single IP who has ever applied to Chebucto and I will personally get in contact with each and every single one of them and ask them why they are or are not here and if not, then why not. I spent all last weekend going through the IPdb manually and inspected every single IP site and I can spend whatever time is necessary to present an accurate accounting of the state of Chebucto. Then maybe, just maybe we can start to turn things around before it is too late. To make the point as bluntly as I can: if we wish to stick around and not disappear, then we have to adapt to the new realities of the net and the way things are done now. We evolve or we die. The potential IP groups do not need to accomodate us, we need to accomodate them. I expect the IP contact information as soon as you can send it along. I will present the numbers from that to this list as soon as possible. Andrew
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects