next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mark Ronald Rushton wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Andrew D. Wright wrote: > > Since there is no way known to either me or the techs in the > > office to produce these numbers, and a number of issues surrounding > > Precisely one of my issues. Our tracking mechanisms are.... ? > The same ones that have always been in place. :) > > still listed on Chebucto's pages as a site and will no doubt remain there > > until someone from HRL notices and tells us to remove it, just like PLENS > > did with their pages. > > Which is no way to run an online community. Talk about a "hands-off" > operation! > No one is saying or has told the editors that they cannot have contact with their IPs. That they seem not to have been doing this is on them. There is nothing stopping any editor from going through their sites, contacting the people involved and getting things running. There is nothing stopping editors from updating their index pages and removing dead links. There is nothing stopping editors from going out in the community and soliciting new groups to sign with us. It would be nice if editors and office were on the same page WRT what we are telling groups (i.e. if I'm telling them how to FTP, they should not be getting confusing or conflicting instructions referring to the text service or what-have-you), but this can be covered in an email message if editors were so interested (and at least one has been). > Well, the _office_ has contact with these organizations directly, and that > is not the same as contact between the organizations and those CCN persons > responsible for the online index, etc. Who monitors the "IPs" for > appropriateness of content? Are we only able to deal passively with them, > i.e, wait for complaints about problems, or requests to remove sites? > Apparently so! If the editors are doing what they are supposed to be doing, then this is already in hand. If they are not, then you tell me. > Well, frankly, part of the reason they didn't contact us and for the lack > of organizational contact was exactly that point; IPs were not invoiced. > Not to be critical, but I have run into one IP who has had difficulty > obtaining an invoice (required by the organization before bills can be > paid) and I have two IPs that had to repeatedly request invoices. Is this > part of our office procedure now sufficiently responsive? The politics surrounding IPs is incredible. I have been ordered to provide invoices, to not provide invoices, and taken hit after hit as I've worked to make our processes easier to follow and manage. The fact that IP signups are going up is showing that making things easier is good. Remember that 75% of groups attempting to sign up with us failed to complete the process before. > Andrew, given that (as you stated at the AGM), you frequently are unable > to keep up with the piles of phone messages at the office, why are you > undertaking "in-office IP tutoring". Should this not be relegated to > another person / body with the organization? Is this one of the > implications of the fact we no longer provide IP training? > Frequently does not mean every single day or even most days. Today for example has been very quiet. WRT in-office tutoring, it is my understanding that that is part of my job, to help our users use our service. The editor needed some information, phoned the office and was getting tutored in person within 30 minutes. I spent twenty minutes with them and they left happy. Quick, easy and done. I know this is not the traditional Chebucto way, but I am prepared to take the hit on that and be judged on my results. You don't get that kind of service with sympatico or Auracom or iStar. That's why we're better than them and why groups are coming to us as soon as they are aware what it is we're offering.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects