|
Grex > Coop7 > #16: Special Board Meeting re. TIIAP Grant Application | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 220 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 175 of 220:
| 
Jun 7 07:10 UTC 1995 |
Thanks! I used to log in to follow policy, but have run out of time
(I got Netscape).
|
selena
|
|
response 176 of 220:
|
Jun 9 11:33 UTC 1995 |
Well, all I know is it seems fishy for arbornet to say that "if the
project becomes worthwhile", then they'll join in. That's like saying, if
the pie's good,I'll eat it, but I won't help bake it!
|
carson
|
|
response 177 of 220:
|
Jun 9 14:13 UTC 1995 |
Seems OK to me. It's sort of like saying, "I won't join a conference
until it gets exciting." It can be a vicious circle.
Some people choose to lead, and some people choose to ride coattails.
Arbornet is choosing to ride the coattails on this one.
|
selena
|
|
response 178 of 220:
|
Jun 9 14:23 UTC 1995 |
Okay, good point.
|
janc
|
|
response 179 of 220:
|
Jun 9 20:28 UTC 1995 |
Actually, I think the attitude is "Grex and HVCN don't have anything Arbor-
net doesn't have, so we have nothing to gain from working with them. Instead
we'll just go and do it all ourselves."
|
jep
|
|
response 180 of 220:
|
Jun 10 03:49 UTC 1995 |
Actually, there having been 11 Arbornet Board members eligible to
vote on WIN issues, I think I've seen 11 different attitudes so far.
I did not make any offers on behalf of Arbornet, and neither has
the Arbornet Board. I did say that it might happen that Arbornet joins
WIN, or assists with it's projects, or otherwise gets involved in WIN
again.
Jan is right to some extent; I've heard Arbornet Board members say
related things. There are some things that Arbornet should be doing,
regardless of the priorities or activities of other organizations. We're
even doing some of those things.
There are some things other organizations can do that we cannot,
should not, or will not. Arbornet's mission statement is not completely
open-ended, and neither are our capabilities.
I think there are other things we can cooperate on. I haven't seen
anyone seriously propose to begin work on them, but when someone does,
I'll be there, and I'll be trying to bring Arbornet along, too.
Maybe Arbornet will start some of these things, and Grexers, HVCNers,
and those interested primarily in WIN will jump in. Interested in
teaching about computer hardware, the Internet, or other computer-type
subjects? We're now recruiting. The next class will be in August, but
we're starting to plan it now. Want to work with other non-profits in
the area? Arbornet has been doing that for two years. It's expanding all
the time. It'll expand a lot in the next year. Want to help out
educators? Arbornet's K-12 project has been running for about 8 months,
it was in planning for a long time before that, and it has a long way to
go, but we've started. If you want to do any of these kinds of things,
we're doing them now, and we're willing to work with more people.
If you want to start new, different things -- please do. No
promises, but we just might be able and willing to help.
|
tsty
|
|
response 181 of 220:
|
Jun 11 02:28 UTC 1995 |
I think that "avoiding foreign entanglements" without VClear benefits
and no loss of autonomy drives many decisions. I can;t state exactly
what it is that WIN is supposed to be offering to itself or any
body else except for a conduit through which federal tax dollars will
flow to WIN and then (downhill) to other system(s) which climb on
that taxflow bandwagon.
If it's more than that I haven't heard about it yet.
Also, I've never seen tax dollars without some ....
ReallyIncredibleStringsKonnected (that's RISK). For systems with
such small levels of leverage (compared to the GummintMonolith) the
autonomy issue and local control issue loom large on the horizon
if/when WIN gets in bed with successfully existing systems.
Succinctly put: The less Fed the better, imnsho.
|
steve
|
|
response 182 of 220:
|
Jun 11 17:40 UTC 1995 |
risk--I like that. Well, overall, I agree with you. It was
worth writing it though, as its been excellent preparation for
other such grants from other entities.
|
mdw
|
|
response 183 of 220:
|
Jun 13 09:32 UTC 1995 |
I think the major real advantage so far has been in assembling some
interesting people, and learning about things. I've had a chance to
learn quite a bit more about ISDN than I knew initially, and I'm sure
that will come in handy sooner or later.
I think everone involved with WIN is well aware of the risks - in a
sense, that's one of the good things Win can do - having multiple
different organizations each concentrating on doing different things
right and cooperating, is a much better model than trying to have one
thing that tries to please everyone, and ends up spending more time
resolving internal conflicts than in dealing with real problems.
|
tsty
|
|
response 184 of 220:
|
Jun 21 16:29 UTC 1995 |
due to my ignorance, i wold appreciate adbarr's comments about
the structure of WIN as reflected in the 1st graph of #181.
|
srw
|
|
response 185 of 220:
|
Jun 23 06:02 UTC 1995 |
So far, WIN's accomplishment has been to apply for a grant that is
unlikely to awarded to it. But WIN embodies the mutual desire of
HVCN and Grex to develop infrastructure jointly. We could share a
modem pool and associated hardware, as well as an internet link,
and usenet server, thus avoiding duplication and generating
economies of scale. This is possible without any outside $.
Also, by joining forces, some of us believe that there is an
opportunity to tap resources not available to either one.
There is some chance that public access sites can be established
through some kind of public funding, for example.
Will there be a risk that with such funding will come a loss of
autonomy for either HVCN or Grex? There might be if the
money were needed to run the system itself, but that is not the case
for Grex, and as will shortly be seen by all, is not the case for HVCN
either.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 186 of 220:
|
Jun 23 22:53 UTC 1995 |
re #184 - Tsty - I am not sure at all that I fully understand
the exact question - but - - - here goes. As I read the first
paragraph of #181 it says to me - 1. Unless there are clear reasons
to join WIN, and unless the entity joining retains its autonomy,
then there is no reason to (no good reason) to join. I agree
with the statement if that is the correct interpretation.
Then the paragraph goes on to say that it appears WIN is no
more than a conduit for federal tax money to benefit the
participants. This is simply not true, in concept, intent, or
as stated in the grant. WIN is (intended and by consensus,
agreed to) much, much more. Win would have hardware and
communications capability -- real tangible assets - that
could and should benefit the members, as well as perform
a valuable public service to the community -- meaning
any agencies, governments, or oganizations that wanted
to avail themselves of the increased electronic
telecomputing capability WIN would provide. Some of the
money would stop at WIN, some would flow to other
organizations, and some would benefit non-members. And,
remember, that the community would contribute valuable
resources to build WIN, house it, and maintain it, plus
train members of the community to take advantage of
the services made possible or better by having WIN.
Distributed computing and the Web make autonomy possible,
while gaining immensely from sharing the cost of
major communications resources to tie all those
distributed computers together. Sure, no one group
or person would own the central site assets -- but
so what? Each group would own its own servers,
and could maintain as many modems or other assets
as each group wishes, and still share in the
joint assets. WIN needs some form of agreed
structure - to resolve future issues fairly
and in a friendly manner - that should be
possible. After all, isn't Grex itself
a real example of people sharing ownership
of assets, contributing time and expertise,
and yes, money, for the benefit of themselves,
*and* others? WIN is no more than that.
I speak for myself, but I am sure the HVCN
board agrees with this. Does that help?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 187 of 220:
|
Jun 23 23:35 UTC 1995 |
Shucks..I was waiting for your line length to go to zero... ;->
|
adbarr
|
|
response 188 of 220:
|
Jun 24 15:04 UTC 1995 |
Like
thi
s,
r
a
n
e
?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 189 of 220:
|
Jun 25 19:45 UTC 1995 |
Something like that.
|
tsty
|
|
response 190 of 220:
|
Jun 30 10:18 UTC 1995 |
wellllllllllllllllll:
"Then the paragraph goes on to say that it appears WIN is no
more than a conduit for federal tax money to benefit the
participants. This is simply not true, in concept, intent, or
as stated in the grant. WIN is (intended and by consensus,
agreed to) much, much more.
<stuff deleted>
"Some of the
money would stop at WIN, some would flow to other
organizations, and some would benefit non-members."
Aside from what seems to be a logical contradiction after
the PR is subtracted, what is the SOURCE of money referenced
above?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 191 of 220:
|
Jul 1 13:52 UTC 1995 |
tsty - where do you think federal tax money comes from? Where
does any money come from? What is the point of your question?
Please be specific about the "logical contradiction".
|
tsty
|
|
response 192 of 220:
|
Jul 5 17:27 UTC 1995 |
we are all way too fully aware of "where federal tax money" comes
from. And most of us can figger out "where it goes" whether or not
that destination is wise or constitutional. I question the wisdom
of this destination.
further, i was wondering if you would be willing to admit that WIN *is*
a conduit for federal tax money to benefit the participants. You do
so state without recognition of the model being implemented. That is
your logical contradiction.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 193 of 220:
|
Jul 6 02:55 UTC 1995 |
Well, TS, you got me! WIN is a scam, a flam, and and a "conduit" -
Oh Gosh! Just like the Interstate Highway project - of course you
don't drive on those? Just like the entire telecommunications structure
in this country, but of course you don't use those. Just like federal
money to fund medical research - but you have never had an innoculation?
Just like federal meat inspectors "benefit the participants" ie the
people who buy and consume meat products - but you don't do that?
Or perhaps you only consume vegetables - which are shipped on trucks,
which ride on those pesky Interstate highways? And, don't forget the
old 'lectric grid - without which we could not have this conversation,
and which would not exist save for the expenditure of several federal
tax dollars -- I'm really curious -- how would you work all this? Perhaps
if we reduce the world population to about 500,000 total - we might
have the ability to exist independently -- perhaps you have a better
solution? Untill then, I fail to see the problem. But I sure do
"admit" my willingness to participate in an organization that will
be a "conduit" for money *in* to the county, as opposed to money
*out* of the county.
|
tsty
|
|
response 194 of 220:
|
Jul 7 06:11 UTC 1995 |
<<anyone wanna say something before i do?>>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 195 of 220:
|
Jul 8 00:31 UTC 1995 |
Please - don't be shy - I want to hear substance for a change.
I cannot engage mists of dawn.
|
nephi
|
|
response 196 of 220:
|
Jul 14 14:02 UTC 1995 |
What sort of financial plans does WIN have for if it doesn't get The Grant?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 197 of 220:
|
Jul 15 17:44 UTC 1995 |
none - perhaps you, and others would like to contribute ideas?
WIN is not somth
Smartcom for Windows
ing
WIN is not something to be sold - it is something to be
created - the invitation for participation is historical
and long standing. WIN came into being as a concept
resulting from the TIIAP grant concepts and requirements.
You are part of the definition, if you choose. Or,
you can sit and watch, and judge as things happen, or not.
|
srw
|
|
response 198 of 220:
|
Jul 15 21:47 UTC 1995 |
That's right. Arnold, representing HVCN, came to the Grex people
and said something like "We're going to apply for this grant, but
we think it would be a stronger application if we partnered with
Grex and applied together." We at Grex agreed, and WIN became
the embodiment of that agreement to cooperate. When we put together
the application, we added the ability for other kinds of
partners to exist as well, and added Concordia College as one such.
I suppose WIN could now go searching for other money. Perhaps
a private grant, some other government grant, or possibly
money from a private foundation. Another possibility is to try
to raise money from the local community. I have no experience
doing this sort of thing, though.
Without some source of funds or services offered to it by some
benificent organization, WIN is unlikely to lead anywhere, I fear.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 199 of 220:
|
Jul 17 11:42 UTC 1995 |
New partnerships, new methods of cooperation, new ideas of sharing
resources -- are the sine que non of future seed money. Thereafter,
we are on our own to solve issues of survival. Money is there. The
real question is whether the will and ability to share are there. The
problem is not the lack of money -- the problem is the lack of
understanding and the lack of the willingness to share. One is reminded
of a sandbox.
|