SCN: Re: OPS: w3m ...

[Janos Szablya]

Doug you have a good memory...

Janos

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Doug Schuler wrote:

> 
> Moments after I had resolved NOT to muddy this conversation with any of
> my comments I ran across a comment that *needed* a response.
> 
> Rod's comments (below) that CPSR set up SCN in such a way that we
> wouldn't get substantial corporate, foundation, or govenment support
> doesn't square with my recollections.  One of the main reasons that we
> didn't get any support was that we didn't ASK.  I can remember only one
> previous time when we submitted a grant proposal (to the Bullitt
> Foundation to help environmental groups).  The main reason (in my
> recollection) we didn't seek grants is that seeking grants is hard work
> and we didn't seem to be able to find the time.  I don't think it was
> ever an explicit POLICY decision that forbade making proposals.
> 
> I am in favor of developing innovative community technology projects
> and finding funds for them.  What I think we need to resist is reliance
> on one or two resources for all of our revenues, fees for services, and
> (especially?) advertising.
> 
> -- Doug
> 
> PS.  Just in case anybody finds it useful I'll mention my
> article (now four years old) on how to kill community networks...
> http://www.scn.org/ip/commnet/kill-commnets.html.
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:37:35 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Rod Clark <bb615 at scn.org>
> > To: AH <bb156 at scn.org>
> > cc: Gianni Truzzi <gtruzzi at scn.org>, scn at scn.org
> > Subject: Re: SCN: Re: OPS: w3m ...
> > 
> > Andrew Higgins wrote:
> > > 2¢ Joe Mabel wrote:
> > > 2¢ > If SCN's decision not to fundraise from corporations and to focus on a
> > > 2¢ > volunteer
> > > 2¢ > staff leads directly to this sort of consequence, I think this consequence
> > > 2¢ > calls that decision into question.
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Gianni Truzzi wrote:
> > > 2¢ Allow me to correct this mistaken belief. The Board of SCNA has NOT made
> > > 2¢ any such decision. In fact, we expect to begin soliciting corporate and
> > > 2¢ foundation funding rather vigorously in the coming months. However, that
> > > 2¢ kind of fundraising effort has taken a back seat to other efforts for
> > > 2¢ which it would be prerequisite. It's simply been a matter of allocating
> > > 
> > > This "mistaken" belief was first espoused by a member of the Board, and
> > > made to sound like a policy decision. 
> > > 
> > > http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/msg00022.html
> > > 
> > > Perhaps if we had published minutes it could be made more clear how this
> > > confusion arose...
> > 
> > Andrew, 
> > 
> >    There's never been any confusion that (until the very recent
> > City education grant) almost all of SCN's revenues have come
> > from small personal contributions to CPSR and then to SCNA, and
> > from small contributions by users for new accounts.
> > 
> >    The City grant was a big departure for SCN, but still we
> > don't depend on it for providing core services. Those still come
> > from the sum of all the small personal contributions.
> > 
> >    This is not accidental, and CPSR set it up that way for a
> > reason. That reason was to avoid any possibility of anything
> > other than a competely free and independent viewpoint that would
> > take into account only the interests of the membership and not
> > of any partner organizations, government agencies, underwriting
> > businesses or any other entities at all.
> > 
> >    There is a proposal for SCN, called SCN II, that Gianni
> > drafted recently and that he mentioned during the Annual
> > Meeting, that would add greatly to the range of possible funding
> > sources. In the process, it would make membership contributions
> > relatively much less important because they could not reasonably
> > be expected to rise to meet the funding levels necessary to
> > provide greatly improved services to underserved consituencies
> > and otherwise greatly increase SCN's activities.
> > 
> >    The SCN II proposal has been circulated in draft form and I
> > hope that you'll soon have a chance to study and comment on it.
> > Since this is an important new initiative, we all should be
> > interested in shaping it to provide the best chance for SCN to
> > grow and at the same time to keep a stable, dependable funding
> > base and keep its independence. I believe the SCN II proposal
> > can adequately addresses these concerns, and also believe that
> > everyone in the Association who is concerned should have the
> > chance to contribute something to this discusion as we go
> > forward.
> > 
> > Rod Clark
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *