BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times

[patrick]

Hi Steve, 

Comments below.

--- Steve Guest <steve at groupworks.org> wrote:
> Hi Patrick
> See below with a few snips for email reading assistance ;-)
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patrick" <clariun at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 10:54 AM
> Subject: Re: BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> > Yes, no need for flames.
> Thanks for understanding
> 
> > Human capital is high, but something could be worked out if a
> company
> > started an ISP as a not-for-profit. You would have to run models
> and
> > leave out the expensive dotcom chairs for all employees.
> Here is where I think I have been missing the point in my
> explainations.
> The IRS have stated very clearly that no not-for-profit can be an
> ISP.  They
> have said that an ISP is and only can be a for-profit business. 
> They have
> even written some nice justifications for their stance on this
> issue.  This
> is why SCN, and other CNS/FreeNets, are walking a very carefull
> line here.
> It would not take too much for the IRS to move even tighter on
> their stance
> to include us.  This is a very good reason why our education
> program is of
> primary importance.

I will point out that I know nothing about the difference between
non-profit and not-for-profit from the IRS standpoint. I only make
the assumption that non-profit is often eligible for tax breaks and
that not-for-profit is a co-op that is inbetween for-profit and
non-profit.

If the IRS is making stink about being so strict about low-cost
not-for-profit internet service, then I hope some organization is
taking a step up to the plate and lobbying for changes to this. ISPs
should be allowed to run like public television stations.

> 
> > All kinds of things go wrong with Usenet feeds and that eats up a
> lot
> > of human resources.
> And disk space - but that is cheap in comparision ;-)
> 
> > There are many dotcoms, so to speak, that were there first and
> are
> > still around. They run their businesses out of their houses or
> > garages and keep expenses to a minimum. Eskimo does it and has
> done
> > it for a long time.
> Yep and the laws have now been changed to try and stop this from
> happening.
> Plus the telcos are unhappy about running T1s into some residential
> neighborhoods.  Given I can't even get DSL or cable service here in
> south
> Bellevue!

That is unfortunate. But it is another example of large corporations
fighting against what is right in the long run. MS is an acute
example, however it is the telcos who are the primary organizations
for example. Many are the offshoots of the railroads who also used
their monopolistic powers to control legislation.

> 
> > All I was advocating was possibilities and not for SCN. It has
> other
> > issues as I went into discussion about: Like having a competent
> > manager to oversee all projects and kept the flow going at full
> > optimization.
> Umm - now that implies something.  Are you suggesting I am
> incompetent?  It
> is fun trying to optimize volunteers task loads and keeping things
> legal and
> on track.  Managing a volunteer taskforce is worse than the famous
> EDS
> "Super Bowl" description of managing and herding cats.  The best
> description
> I have ever heard was that it was like trying to control and manage
> bees.
> You think the volunteer force are doing one thing and then you find
> they
> have gone off and done something else or they have done nothing
> because it
> was a sunny day or they had a good idea but they never realized
> that ....
> would happen it they did .... or they have simply gone off and
> never come
> back.  Managing a volunteer force is unlike any management task 
> you can be
> trained for.   BTW, a competent manager would not oversee all
> projects, they
> delegate - and then in SCN's case they prey.  I can oversee so
> much, but
> then I too run out of volunteer time.

As the adage goes: A little goes a long way: From my standpoint, SCN
could function and flow a lot better if there was better
orchestration from the conductor. Right now, things are too
fractured. I used to beat my head against the wall to get responses,
but my head started to hurt and I gave it up.

I was only saying that SCN needs a project manager, or something of
that ilk (project managers are not well loved where I work, but that
is the nature of the structure of our organization).


> 
> So, if you know any "competent" managers who want to work in this
> type of
> environment, please let me know.  I am missing about 6 or 7
> currently.  Most
> take one look and realize they have never been prepared for this
> type of
> structure because all their training does not work.

I'm interested in the position, if such a position were to open up.
Not with the intent to usurp power (and I only mention this because
people might assume so.), but I wouldn't mind being the project
manager for SCN or the communications 'dude'.

With that, I didn't imply that you were incompent: Only that I see a
need for someone who can manage the projects and report to you. I
think you have your hands full and could use someone who can distill
all that is going on and disseminate information and keep everyone
informed.

Which brings to mind a question: Would such a position fit into the
current structure? I see that someone could fulfill that and be of
assistance.

Patrick

> 
> Thx
> Steve
> <snip>
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *