SCN: Re: Re: principles

[Steve Guest]

Doug
Still a personal view

Actually reading your email makes me believe we are exactly the same page
here.  When I wanted to change them my aim was to broaden them and not
weaken them.  So, I believe that I see them exactly as you seem to.

My concern was that people would read them not as ideals but as promissory
commitments.  I have been getting several users asking why we were not
fulfilling ALL the principles and by not doing so, SCN was failing.

One of my aims is to try for a stable long term vision and to get the focus
off the day-to-day management.
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Schuler" <douglas at scn.org>
To: "Steve Guest" <steve at groupworks.org>
Cc: <scna-board at scn.org>; "patrick fisher" <clariun at yahoo.com>; "scn"
<scn at scn.org>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: principles


>
> Steve,
>
> It seems to me that we look at the principles through different
> eyes.  I'll explain my side and I'd like to hear yours.  It's
> hard for me to really believe that we see things so differently
> but from your note it does seem that may be true.  In particular
> I am one of those people that don't see any need to revisit the
> principles with an eye towards changing them.  On the other
> hand I see a continuing need to revisit the principles with
> an eye towards seeing where they can lead; what new projects
> we might undertake.  Weakening them just because we don't
> feel like doing one particular project or because we don't
> currently have the resources seems unnecessary to me.
>
> As Patrick and others have pointed out the principles are
> just a set of orienting ideas; they aren't a recipe.
> In your example of the database, the principles suggest
> that we will provide access to databases and other services.
> That can mean that we provide the access alone to databases
> and services on other systems and/or databases and other
> services on our own machine.  I see absolutely no reason
> why it's important to say that we will never any of these
> services ourselves.  What would be the point of that except
> to stunt our own potential?
>
> The ideals should always be a bit more ideal than those immediately
> attainable.  "A man's reach should exceed his grasp..."  This is
> a philosophical view I guess but I think it's important for
> our vision and growth -- especially in the long term.
>
> -- Doug
>
>    ******************************************************************
>    *     SHAPING THE NETWORK SOCIETY                                *
>    *          Patterns for Participation, Action, and Change        *
>    *                  http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/diac02        *
>    * Tomorrow's information and communication infrastructure        *
>    *   is being shaped today.                                       *
>    *                              But by whom and to what ends?     *
>    * Questions: diac02-info at cpsr.org                                *
>    ******************************************************************
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Steve Guest wrote:
>
> > Joe
> > This is a personal view.
> >
> > I see no problem with the statement - we do not stop SCN being available
> > from any place.  I will agree that we do not provide access equipment
and we
> > never have.  Given that every library in Seattle, King County and
several
> > other  service offer SCN up front and almost every community center now
as
> > some public access, the need is limited.  We might wish to teach there,
but
> > we have no need to provide special equipment or services.
> >
> > If you look at the City's DOIT web site under the SCTA, you should find
that
> > a project they commissioned from the UW showed that we now have even
more
> > public Internet access then every before and this concluded that there
was
> > no need for further funding of public access in the City.  We may not
> > believe that and are still helping, but it is hard to seek and justify
funds
> > for what a report says in not required.
> >
> > You singled out one point from the principles.  One of the things I was
told
> > initially when I began to work with SCN was that "the principles" are
just
> > that, they are an ideal and not the policy.  If you read them there are
many
> > more entries in that list which are even more questionable.  For
example,
> > "We will provide access to databases and other services."  In the same
way,
> > this does not mean that we provide the database nor the data, but the
> > access.
> >
> > I personally asked to have them revisited, but was told firmly that as a
set
> > of principles they are sacrosanct and are a part of SCN's culture - much
> > like Mickey Mouse is to Disney.  So for me these principles and ideals
from
> > 1992 are part of SCN heritage.
> >
> > To help answer your question on public access, the Board has for the
last
> > three years been working closely on this with the City of Seattle, which
I
> > hope you agree is an even more appropriate body to address the issue of
> > public access.  I have been asked several times to sit on the Mayor's
> > advisory board, but due to the fact that I live in Bellevue - I can't.
> > Currently SCN has a City supported project which is giving access to the
> > public, by providing equipment and training in needy areas of the City.
So
> > the Board is always aware of these issues and does what it can.
> >
> > Hopefully, when we get access to the public labs again, we can gear up
the
> > training group and get it back into action.  Losing all our main
teaching
> > sites was devastating for the group, but we still teach at a few other
sites
> > around the City.
> >
> > Finally, I do wonder why you chose the comment, "Now that access to SCN
> > merely means access to the Internet" as it seems to imply something
changed
> > and for the worse.  It follows that SCN has stopped offering some
functions
> > which in some way, you feel, diminishes the hard work of the volunteers
of
> > the current and evolving services.  Could you explain why or how SCN has
> > changed in your eyes?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Steve
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Mabel" <jmabel at speakeasy.org>
> > To: "Doug Schuler" <douglas at scn.org>
> > Cc: "patrick fisher" <clariun at yahoo.com>; "scn" <scn at scn.org>;
> > <scna-board at scn.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:58 PM
> > Subject: BD: Re: principles
> >
> >
> > > [SNIP]
> > > >      * We will make the SCN accessible from public places.
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > How long since the Board, or some other appropriate body, gave any
thought
> > to
> > > what this now means? Now that access to SCN merely means access to the
> > Internet,
> > > what (if anything) are we doing to enhance the availability of access
to
> > the
> > > Internet in pubic places?
> > >
> > > JM
> > >
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
> > > scna-board at scn.org is for the purposes of scna board members' internal
> > > communications.  Please contact sharma at scn.org if you have questions
> > > about this list.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *