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, Ah, ha - at least a discussion has been provoked. ;-> Here's my point: both 'old' and 'new' systems (if one can call them such) have strong and weak aspects: say IP training. Under the past protocols some (a few) IPs chafed at the notion of compulsory IP training and made every effort to make it difficult for us and themselves. Exceptions to the rules were allowed and people who could demonstrate they knew what they were doing were either given an exemption or fast-tracked but some still grumbled. Some (a few) really benefited tremendously and thanked us profusely for giving them this leg up. Most went through it, learned a thing or two, tolerated doing a couple or three exercises and then that was that. The registration and IP creation process were not as clear-cut or streamlined as they are now (and this was sometimes burdensome or unclear), however, they did lead to far-more interaction between CCN volunteers and IP editors. In some cases this was doubtlessly needless. In other instances this fostered a productive contact between people personal relationships ;->. To this day I get periodic Emails (or even phone calls!) from IPs who I worked with 2, 3, or 4 years ago (one today, by chance) who noted my name as someone they could ask questions of. I know of other CCN Editors in the same boat, some of whom receive Emails from IPs even long after they leave their CCN portfolios. Right: then you change the 'system' so that it's streamlined and more efficient and it all runs through the Office (yet another thing the office does in place of volunteers). It simplifies certain things, however, the new system also severs many of those contacts (and the reasons for them) between volunteers and IP editors that cement relationships and help put a human face on the CCN. Hence Mark's point about the relationship between the CCN & IPs increasingly becoming simply a financial one. Each 'system' has its pluses and minuses. The Office can (and does), of course, do a lot. However, how much can one individual do if they are a board member, a committee chair, an IP editor, an employee and office manger, the assistant editor-in-chief, a newsletter editor, a volunteer, etc.? If the system centralizes so many pathways through a single channel why is it surprising that it is overloaded (and the telephone mailbox overflows at 60 messages)? Nothing stops CCN Editors, as Andrew notes, from doing a number of things. But nothing encourages (or compels ;->) them either. Like anyone else, if they can't perceive a meaningful thing they can do in relation to IPs, they are not going to force the issue. The long and short of it is, that if the CCN is going to try encourage meaningful contacts between IPs and the CCN that help give the relationship a human dimension, and hence make IPs conscious of the _community_ aspects of there participation in the Chebucto Community Net, it can't all take place through the administrative mechanism of the office. Also those involved have to have a meaningful role, something useful to do and a program to follow. There is no doubt that this is a challenge. I don't have the answers and I commend the Board in its consideration of the problem. BTW, with all due respect, it is meaningless to say that (under the previous system); "75% of groups attempting to sign up with us failed to complete the process." I followed IP applications since the creation of the CCN. Not all applications lead to operational IPs but the *vast* majority of those that didn't were (for one reason or other) not because the applicants were not actually serious (for a thousand different reasons) about pursuing these applications. There is a great gulf between dreaming about having a website and actually taking the time to create, de-bug, upload, administer, etc. it. I know since I followed up with *every single IP application that stalled.* I could give (in fact, in past EIC reports I did give) a litany of reasons of why this was so. Some people didn't really know what an Information Provider was (they made an application when all they wanted to do was post an item on our site); we had an application from a student group in Ohio that wanted to post class activities at their college for a while, while they had problems with their server; applications (like NS Ringette and Word on the Street) that were fast-tracked (created in the span of a few hours) that failed ever to upload any documents; reams of 'test' applications created by CCN staff (or others) testing the system; staff people who applied on behalf of organizations ,the boards of which subsequently decided they didn't want a website after all; people applying for organizations that already had websites; people who smoked too much of something before going online; people who never responded to any communications about what they planned to do, etc., etc. In my estimation something in the order of 90% of serious applications resulted in a functioning websites. Best wishes, Christopher Majka _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor: Culture & Philosophy - Chebucto Community Net, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Culture.html "Culture is the sum of all the forms of art, of love and of thought, which, in the course of centuries, have enabled man to be less enslaved." -- Andre Malraux, 1957 _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects