From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Fri Jul 1 07:56:56 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (Rod Clark) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:56:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken Gillgren In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ken, SCN nominally still has 185 mailing lists on the books. (I sent Majordomo a "lists" command a while ago, and eventually it responded with the list of lists. My text editor says that file has 185 lines.) It's impossible to tell whether any of them are still in use, without useful login access to the system. But a few days ago when I set up a mailing list for a school board candidate on a local non-profit system, it wasn't SCN. I would have preferred to be able to do something like that on SCN, but realistically it's not possible to believe that things would work satisfactorily. The problems mostly aren't with the hardware, which is puffing along arthritically well enough to continue running, but that no one is left at the switch. It's all ghosts, except for Randy's occasional touch-up here and there when he can get to it. I'm amazed that it's still up, and that Randy has kept it up all this time. But it's become a museum on disk. No one has succeeded in starting a new community group site on SCN for years. A quick read-only look via FTP at the directory names and dates shows that none of the roughly 350 sites still on SCN's server have been updated in years, with the exception of these four - Phil Bartle's CMP/RDI/MPFC/GCAD (tech support by Al Boss), Jean Buskin's calendar (my 1998 Perl calendar program still chugging along), Qwest Pioneers (updated in 2010 - that's Lois), and OWL's Hoot (I'm guessing Lois). That's it. Otherwise, multiply your experience times 350. Randy is suggesting a work party to install six new servers. They'd have a current operating system and software, something normal and not frighteningly weird. That would give us a system that normal Unix people could walk up to and understand. I've volunteered to help with that, although there's no schedule yet. But mostly, volunteers would need to get together and come up with something on the people side of things. What do you actually want from a local non-profit Internet group these days, if anything? Rod Clark > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Kenneth" > To: "'Randy Groves'" , > "'Steve Guest'" > Cc: , , > , , , > , , , > , , , > , "'Joel Ware, IV'" , > "'Joel Ware, IV'" , > "'Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway'" > Subject: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:54:59 -0700 > > Out of curiousity, how many volunteer/technical staff are still supporting > SCN? I know the Wedgwood Community Council was hosted on SCN until the > council's Web admin was unable to get a response from SCN support (I don't > remember what the question or issue was anymore, this was probably 2-3 years > ago), and so they weighed anchor and moved to a commercially hosted service. > > Are people still signing up for email addresses and/or mailing lists? Can > people still sign up for email addresses and/or mailing lists? > > I'm guessing there could still be a niche for SCN, although the type of > support might be different, and therefore the volunteer pool may or may not > be available. > > Just wondering. > > Ken Gillgren > (206) 755-9578 > ken at gillgrencommunication.com > Skype: ken.gillgren > > > > _____ > > From: Randy Groves [mailto:randomgrace at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:32 PM > To: Steve Guest > Cc: ljbeedle at scn.org; douglas at publicsphereproject.org; > alboss at sisypheans.org; al.boss at metrokc.gov; kgillgren at igc.org; jj at scn.org; > scn at scn.org; douglas at cpsr.org; steve at advocate.net; jmabel at speakeasy.org; > jimh at scn.org; bb615 at scn.org; anamioka at gmail.com; Joel Ware, IV; Joel Ware, > IV; Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway > Subject: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > > > I was a bit curious that Joel, Alan, and Ti were not included in the e-mail, > but forwarded it to them as soon as I saw it. > > I think that it is a little early to start dancing on SCN's grave. > > -randy > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Steve Guest wrote: > > > Hi Lois > Having officially resigned from the SCNA board about 3 years ago I cannot > tell you the current situation. I do not see Joel or Ti listed in this > email and they were still board members when I resigned. > > As for the disposal of the SCNA assets and funds the articles of > incorporation, the constitution and the by-laws where appropriate were all > very clear - these must all go to CPSR. Having tried to change a small > aspect of these by-laws to give the board the ability to perform a required > and expected management function - and failing - I would expect these asset > and fund dispersal requirements have not changed. Therefore they cannot > simply be transferred to another non-profit. > > The ACLU attorney who setup the rules did a great job. I had discussions > with four attorneys on ways to change these documents, including the one who > did the original work. There are copies of the documents on the web site > should you need them. I would have your own legal counsel look at these. > > Steve > > Dr. Steve Guest > 206-364-5636 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of > ljbeedle at scn.org > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:34 AM > To: douglas at publicsphereproject.org; randomgrace at gmail.com; > > alboss at sisypheans.org; al.boss at metrokc.gov; kgillgren at igc.org; jj at scn.org; > scn at scn.org; douglas at cpsr.org; steve at advocate.net; jmabel at speakeasy.org; > > jimh at scn.org; bb615 at scn.org; anamioka at gmail.com > Subject: SCN: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > > > I would hate to see SCN die totally. I am not sure how many active users > we still have but I do have 4 non profits with directories on SCN that I > keep up. I also still try to keep up the Spirituality menu. > > What would it mean to our users if your group took over Doug? > > What does the SCN Constitution and By-laws say about the disposition of > assets if we were to dissolve SCN? > > Having gone though this with a church I do know that not much is required > to reactive except for filing an up to date Constitution and By-laws and > the fee. At least that was all we had to do for the church. > > Is there anyone left who can call a meeting of the members to approve any > actions? > > Lois > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.org > Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:07:36 -0700 > To: randomgrace at gmail.com, alboss at sisypheans.org, al.boss at metrokc.gov, > kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, scn at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, > steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, ljbeedle at scn.org, > bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com > Subject: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > > > > After 10 years or so of inaction it looks like the SCN board finally > ceased re-upping with the secretary of state. > > I'm guessing that it would still be possible to re-initiate the > organization if anybody wanted to. I'd be willing for the Public > Sphere Project (a non-profit, 501.c.3 organization) to absorb the > assets (probably just the machine) to continue the operation of the > machine. I think that my students could take some degree of > custodianship over the machine as part of their civic intelligence > work. > > -- Doug > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Fri Jul 1 22:03:16 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 05:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Doug Schuler In-Reply-To: <20110702044541.4D40ABF7D1@scn.org> References: <20110702044541.4D40ABF7D1@scn.org> Message-ID: This message from Doug Schuler bounced from the scn list (from a non-subscribed address). Rod Clark ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:05:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Douglas Schuler To: Al Boss Cc: Rod Clark , Randy Groves , jmabel , Kenneth , Steve Guest , Lois Beedle , "J. Johnson" , Steve , Jim Horton , AkiNamioka , Joel Ware , Joel Ware , Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway , scn Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken Gillgren Want something done? Ask a busy person... Looks like the right people were asked! I'm impressed at how much work has been done over the years. I agree with Randy that we also need organizational support. The options, as I see it -- similarly to the way Joe presented it-, are 1. Fill the slots on the SCNA board with new people and carry on with the SCNA by-laws, etc. 2. Close up shop and let the money go to CPSR where it could then flow to a new non-profit 3. Somehow get Public Sphere Project into the act I'm OK with any of those.... Here are some of my thoughts on each. 1. This is probably easiest. But going out of business and leaving the assets to CPSR could be a problem... (see item 2) 2. I see closing and moving the money to CPSR as relatively easy. The second part I find harder. Coming up with a new non-profit can be done (we did it with Public Sphere Project) but it can (will?) be a real pain. BTW, I should tell you that I am actually the acting executive director of CPSR and I'm in the process of decommissioning CPSR at the moment. I'm handling the finances which could make things easier -- but it looks like CPSR will cease to exist soon which could complicate matters if SCNA were to go out of business. 3. The PSP is a 501.c.3 non-profit organization which essentially runs on volunteer labor. (see http://www.publicsphereproject.org/ drupal). We have a broad mandate and it could easily include being involved with a community network. 3 of our 5 board members live in western washington, one is in Milan, Italy and one in Brighton, England. Fiorella De Cindio from Milan is in charge of one of the most successful and long-lived community network, BTW. Anyway... my two cents. -- Doug PS. There is more info on the various points above. I can share any of it but I didn't want to cram this note with TMI. On Jul 1, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Al Boss wrote: I can probably find someone who actually could certify all of us insane, though I'm not sure that would be particularly helpful. I'm in pretty much the same boat as Joe, horribly overextended but ready to carve out some time if I can offer anything of use. Best, Al On Jul 1, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Rod Clark wrote: > Randy, > > OK, I'll bite. Could you mention how you're going to get off > Freeport, just a brief outline? New servers with Freeport just > means a bigger faster swampier swamp with faster moving > alligators. The new servers can't have Freeport, unless we're > all certified insane first. All ears on this one. > > Rod Clark > > > On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Randy Groves wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:52:02 -0700 >> From: Randy Groves >> To: Rod Clark >> Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken >> Gillgren >> No - I've got the servers basically configured. They're >> running either Fedora 12 or 13 (I don't remember, and they >> aren't on at the moment). They need to be set up with the >> appropriate addresses for the library situation, and also >> need to have the serial console capability turned on and >> configured (so that we can get into them via phone if they >> hiccup and we can't get to them via the network). >> >> Actually, I'm only planning on installing the three IBMs >> initially, as I believe that may be the max we can do right >> now spacewise. >> >> Once they are in the library, then they'll be accessible. I >> don't think that we want to then have a free-for-all, but >> rather take a good look at what we need and proceed in an >> organized manner. >> >> The first step would be to turn one of the boxes into the >> main file server, and move all the home directories and the >> web server files off of the old SCN boxes. The files would >> be rsync'd on a regular (probably nightly) basis to the >> other identical drive in the box. >> >> Until we get off of FreePort, there will always be some >> aspect of wizardry involved :-). >> >> After that - who knows? >> >> -randy >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Rod Clark wrote: >> >>> Randy, >>> >>> Do you need people to help configure the new servers before >>> moving them to the library? It would be wonderful to hear that >>> this project involves installing a widely known OS, standard >>> software and typical, obvious configuration. It had better not >>> involve any "only the Wizard of SCN can do this" aspects, >>> because if it does we're still in the same boat. >>> >>> As a FreeBSD user for the past five years or so, I hope it's >>> something comprehensible like that. But whatever it is, please >>> let us in on the secret. People would like to contribute >>> something to help this happen. What's the plan - when and how >>> can we help it along? >>> >>> >>> Rod Clark >>> >>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, jmabel wrote: >>> >>> Date: Fri, >>>> >>> 1 Jul 2011 13:57:12 -0700 (PDT) > From: jmabel >>> >>> > To: Rod Clark >>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken >>>> Gillgren >>>> >>> >>>> I'd be glad to be involved in discussions. I'm insanely >>>> busy these days, but I'd prise open a weekday evening or >>>> two for this. >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> Joe Mabel >>>> >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Rod Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> Joe, >>>>> >>>>> The Crisis Directory is a great site, your efforts to keep it >>>>> going for so many years are exceptional, and I overlooked it >>>>> this morning. >>>>> >>>>> But still I can say with 100% certainty that no new sites at all >>>>> have been created on SCN in 2010 or 2011. If they had, those >>>>> directories would have had 2010 and 2011 dates, because even >>>>> with the non-updating dates of symbolic links, any symlinks >>>>> created for them could not have existed prior to the creation >>>>> date of the new directories themselves. >>>>> >>>>> Updating a site is still possible for existing users, like you. >>>>> But creating new sites (or lists) takes some volunteers and >>>>> coordination. That's what SCNA doesn't have any more, and what >>>>> it needs to go forward at all. Does anyone want to meet >>>>> somewhere to discuss what we might want to do, or be able to do? >>>>> >>>>> Rod Clark >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, jmabel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>> From: jmabel >>>>>> To: Rod Clark >>>>>> Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from >>>>>> Ken Gillgren >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm pretty sure I've made updates as recently as last >>>>>> week. I would say I make at least 20-30 updates a year, >>>>>> maybe more. >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>> Joe Mabel >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Rod Clark wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're right. Thank you for catching that. Via FTP, SCN >>>>>>> shows a last modified date for the crisis directory in >>>>>>> 2009. But reading a few of the crisis pages I see that >>>>>>> Clothing, for example, was verified 3/11. What I forgot >>>>>>> to realize is that a symbolic link must have been >>>>>>> updated in 2009, not the actual directory. Since many >>>>>>> of of the other directories are also symbolic links >>>>>>> rather than real directories, I'd have to look within >>>>>>> each one of the symbolically linked directories to find >>>>>>> its actual age. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rod Clark >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, jmabel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>>>> From: jmabel >>>>>>>> To: Rod Clark >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from >>>>>>>> Ken >>>>>>>> Gillgren >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In your list of what is active, you somehow missed the >>>>>>>> crisis directory I actively maintain >>>>>>>> (http://www.scn.org/crisis), which means you may well >>>>>>>> have missed something else. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>>>> Joe Mabel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Rod Clark wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Doug, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you have a mailing list handy at CPSR or Public >>>>>>>>> Sphere that we could use for this conversation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Four and a half hours after I sent the message below >>>>>>>>> to scn at scn.org, it hasn't shown up. A few simple >>>>>>>>> commands to majordomo took a couple of hours to >>>>>>>>> execute this morning. Three and a half hours after I >>>>>>>>> unsubscribed a couple of unknown addresses, I got a >>>>>>>>> confirmation from majordomo that it had executed >>>>>>>>> that. Based on this, I'm going to guess that there >>>>>>>>> are approximately zero mailing lists still actively >>>>>>>>> in use on SCN. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are currently 48 addresses subscribed to scn, >>>>>>>>> that we could move to a usable list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rod Clark >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Rod Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:56:56 +0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>> From: Rod Clark >>>>>>>>> To: scn at scn.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from >>>>>>>>> Ken >>>>>>>>> Gillgren >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ken, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> SCN nominally still has 185 mailing lists on the >>>>>>>>> books. (I sent Majordomo a "lists" command a while >>>>>>>>> ago, and eventually it responded with the list of >>>>>>>>> lists. My text editor says that file has 185 lines.) >>>>>>>>> It's impossible to tell whether any of them are still >>>>>>>>> in use, without useful login access to the system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But a few days ago when I set up a mailing list for a >>>>>>>>> school board candidate on a local non-profit system, >>>>>>>>> it wasn't SCN. I would have preferred to be able to >>>>>>>>> do something like that on SCN, but realistically it's >>>>>>>>> not possible to believe that things would work >>>>>>>>> satisfactorily. The problems mostly aren't with the >>>>>>>>> hardware, which is puffing along arthritically well >>>>>>>>> enough to continue running, but that no one is left >>>>>>>>> at the switch. It's all ghosts, except for Randy's >>>>>>>>> occasional touch-up here and there when he can get to >>>>>>>>> it. I'm amazed that it's still up, and that Randy has >>>>>>>>> kept it up all this time. But it's become a museum on >>>>>>>>> disk. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No one has succeeded in starting a new community >>>>>>>>> group site on SCN for years. A quick read-only look >>>>>>>>> via FTP at the directory names and dates shows that >>>>>>>>> none of the roughly 350 sites still on SCN's server >>>>>>>>> have been updated in years, with the exception of >>>>>>>>> these four - Phil Bartle's CMP/RDI/MPFC/GCAD (tech >>>>>>>>> support by Al Boss), Jean Buskin's calendar (my 1998 >>>>>>>>> Perl calendar program still chugging along), Qwest >>>>>>>>> Pioneers (updated in 2010 - that's Lois), and OWL's >>>>>>>>> Hoot (I'm guessing Lois). That's it. Otherwise, >>>>>>>>> multiply your experience times 350. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Randy is suggesting a work party to install six new >>>>>>>>> servers. They'd have a current operating system and >>>>>>>>> software, something normal and not frighteningly >>>>>>>>> weird. That would give us a system that normal Unix >>>>>>>>> people could walk up to and understand. I've >>>>>>>>> volunteered to help with that, although there's no >>>>>>>>> schedule yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But mostly, volunteers would need to get together and >>>>>>>>> come up with something on the people side of things. >>>>>>>>> What do you actually want from a local non-profit >>>>>>>>> Internet group these days, if anything? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rod Clark >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>>>>>> From: "Kenneth" >>>>>>>>>> To: "'Randy Groves'" , >>>>>>>>>> "'Steve Guest'" >>>>>>>>>> Cc: , , >>>>>>>>>> , , >>>>>>>>>> , , >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> , , >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> , "'Joel Ware, IV'" , >>>>>>>>>> "'Joel Ware, IV'" , >>>>>>>>>> "'Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway'" >>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? >>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:54:59 -0700 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Out of curiousity, how many volunteer/technical >>>>>>>>>> staff are still supporting SCN? I know the Wedgwood >>>>>>>>>> Community Council was hosted on SCN until the >>>>>>>>>> council's Web admin was unable to get a response >>>>>>>>>> from SCN support (I don't remember what the question >>>>>>>>>> or issue was anymore, this was probably 2-3 years >>>>>>>>>> ago), and so they weighed anchor and moved to a >>>>>>>>>> commercially hosted service. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are people still signing up for email addresses >>>>>>>>>> and/or mailing lists? Can people still sign up for >>>>>>>>>> email addresses and/or mailing lists? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing there could still be a niche for SCN, >>>>>>>>>> although the type of support might be different, and >>>>>>>>>> therefore the volunteer pool may or may not be >>>>>>>>>> available. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just wondering. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Gillgren >>>>>>>>>> (206) 755-9578 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ken at gillgrencommunication.com >>>>>>>>>> Skype: ken.gillgren >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _____ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Randy Groves [mailto:randomgrace at gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:32 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: Steve Guest >>>>>>>>>> Cc: ljbeedle at scn.org; >>>>>>>>>> douglas at publicsphereproject.**org>>>>>>>>> alboss at sisypheans.org; al.boss at metrokc.gov; >>>>>>>>>> kgillgren at igc.org; >>>>>>>>>> jj at scn.org; >>>>>>>>>> scn at scn.org; douglas at cpsr.org; steve at advocate.net; >>>>>>>>>> jmabel at speakeasy.org; >>>>>>>>>> jimh at scn.org; bb615 at scn.org; anamioka at gmail.com; >>>>>>>>>> Joel Ware, IV; Joel Ware, IV; Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was a bit curious that Joel, Alan, and Ti were not >>>>>>>>>> included in the e-mail, but forwarded it to them as >>>>>>>>>> soon as I saw it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think that it is a little early to start dancing on >>>>>>>>>> SCN's grave. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -randy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Steve Guest < >>>>>>>>>> steve at steve-guest.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Lois >>>>>>>>>> Having officially resigned from the SCNA board about >>>>>>>>>> 3 years ago I cannot tell you the current situation. >>>>>>>>>> I do not see Joel or Ti listed in this email and >>>>>>>>>> they were still board members when I resigned. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As for the disposal of the SCNA assets and funds the >>>>>>>>>> articles of incorporation, the constitution and the >>>>>>>>>> by-laws where appropriate were all very clear - >>>>>>>>>> these must all go to CPSR. Having tried to change a >>>>>>>>>> small aspect of these by-laws to give the board the >>>>>>>>>> ability to perform a required and expected >>>>>>>>>> management function - and failing - I would expect >>>>>>>>>> these asset and fund dispersal requirements have not >>>>>>>>>> changed. Therefore they cannot simply be transferred >>>>>>>>>> to another non-profit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The ACLU attorney who setup the rules did a great >>>>>>>>>> job. I had discussions with four attorneys on ways >>>>>>>>>> to change these documents, including the one who did >>>>>>>>>> the original work. There are copies of the documents >>>>>>>>>> on the web site should you need them. I would have >>>>>>>>>> your own legal counsel look at these. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dr. Steve Guest >>>>>>>>>> 206-364-5636 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of >>>>>>>>>> ljbeedle at scn.org >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:34 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>> douglas at publicsphereproject.**org>>>>>>>>> randomgrace at gmail.com; >>>>>>>>>> alboss at sisypheans.org; al.boss at metrokc.gov; >>>>>>>>>> kgillgren at igc.org; >>>>>>>>>> jj at scn.org; >>>>>>>>>> scn at scn.org; douglas at cpsr.org; steve at advocate.net; >>>>>>>>>> jmabel at speakeasy.org; >>>>>>>>>> jimh at scn.org; bb615 at scn.org; anamioka at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> Subject: SCN: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would hate to see SCN die totally. I am not sure >>>>>>>>>> how many active users we still have but I do have 4 >>>>>>>>>> non profits with directories on SCN that I keep up. >>>>>>>>>> I also still try to keep up the Spirituality menu. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What would it mean to our users if your group took over >>>>>>>>>> Doug? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What does the SCN Constitution and By-laws say about >>>>>>>>>> the disposition of assets if we were to dissolve >>>>>>>>>> SCN? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Having gone though this with a church I do know that >>>>>>>>>> not much is required to reactive except for filing >>>>>>>>>> an up to date Constitution and By-laws and the fee. >>>>>>>>>> At least that was all we had to do for the church. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone left who can call a meeting of the >>>>>>>>>> members to approve any actions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lois >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original Message: >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.**org>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:07:36 -0700 >>>>>>>>>> To: randomgrace at gmail.com, alboss at sisypheans.org, >>>>>>>>>> al.boss at metrokc.gov, >>>>>>>>>> kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, scn at scn.org, >>>>>>>>>> douglas at cpsr.org, >>>>>>>>>> steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, >>>>>>>>>> ljbeedle at scn.org, >>>>>>>>>> bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> Subject: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After 10 years or so of inaction it looks like the >>>>>>>>>> SCN board finally ceased re-upping with the >>>>>>>>>> secretary of state. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing that it would still be possible to re- >>>>>>>>>> initiate the organization if anybody wanted to. I'd >>>>>>>>>> be willing for the Public Sphere Project (a >>>>>>>>>> non-profit, 501.c.3 organization) to absorb the >>>>>>>>>> assets (probably just the machine) to continue the >>>>>>>>>> operation of the machine. I think that my students >>>>>>>>>> could take some degree of custodianship over the >>>>>>>>>> machine as part of their civic intelligence work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Doug >>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Sphere Project http://www.publicsphereproject.org/ Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (project) http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/ Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (book) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11601 * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jw4 at scn.org Fri Jul 1 23:57:01 2011 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware, IV) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1309589821.16989.YahooMailClassic@web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Folks, I agree --- I would not assume that SCNA is dead.  In fact, it is very much alive. As President, I am taking the necessary steps to reinstate our registration with the Secretary of State. SCNA does have many key resources: we have a treasury, we have a few volunteers (including voicemail people), we have a very stable and solid SCN system, we have many loyal supporters, we have a viable Computer Giveaway program, and we have four dedicated Board members who meet every month.  We are paying our bills and serving users. HOWEVER We need more volunteers! We have an exciting new direction in the area of Wikis for community use.We have the hardware to implement it, and we have a rough design -- but we need people to do it.   We also need a Webmaster and staff to sustain our existing Web, and develop/procure tools that make it easier for info providers to use. I am very pleased to see a resurgence of interest.  I am sure that this is what SCNA needs. Regards,          -Joel. Joel Ware, IV  President, Seattle Community Network AssociationEmail: joelware at yahoo.com Phone: (206) 250-5950 (mobile)   --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Randy Groves wrote: From: Randy Groves Subject: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? To: "Steve Guest" Cc: ljbeedle at scn.org, douglas at publicsphereproject.org, alboss at sisypheans.org, al.boss at metrokc.gov, kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, scn at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com, "Joel Ware, IV" , "Joel Ware, IV" , "Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway" Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 12:32 PM I was a bit curious that Joel, Alan, and Ti were not included in the e-mail, but forwarded it to them as soon as I saw it. I think that it is a little early to start dancing on SCN's grave. -randy On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Steve Guest wrote: Hi Lois Having officially resigned from the SCNA board about 3 years ago I cannot tell you the current situation.  I do not see Joel or Ti listed in this email and they were still board members when I resigned. As for the disposal of the SCNA assets and funds the articles of incorporation, the constitution and the by-laws where appropriate were all very clear - these must all go to CPSR.  Having tried to change a small aspect of these by-laws to give the board the ability to perform a required and expected management function - and failing - I would expect these asset and fund dispersal requirements have not changed.  Therefore they cannot simply be transferred to another non-profit. The ACLU attorney who setup the rules did a great job.  I had discussions with four attorneys on ways to change these documents, including the one who did the original work.  There are copies of the documents on the web site should you need them.  I would have your own legal counsel look at these. Steve Dr. Steve Guest 206-364-5636 -----Original Message----- From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of ljbeedle at scn.org Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:34 AM To: douglas at publicsphereproject.org; randomgrace at gmail.com; alboss at sisypheans.org; al.boss at metrokc.gov; kgillgren at igc.org; jj at scn.org; scn at scn.org; douglas at cpsr.org; steve at advocate.net; jmabel at speakeasy.org; jimh at scn.org; bb615 at scn.org; anamioka at gmail.com Subject: SCN: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? I would hate to see SCN die totally.  I am not sure how many active users we still have but I do have 4 non profits with directories on SCN that I keep up.  I also still try to keep up the Spirituality menu. What would it mean to our users if your group took over Doug? What does the SCN Constitution and By-laws say about the disposition of assets if we were to dissolve SCN? Having gone though this with a church I do know that not much is required to reactive except for filing an up to date Constitution and By-laws and the fee.  At least that was all we had to do for the church. Is there anyone left who can call a meeting of the members to approve any actions? Lois Original Message: ----------------- From: Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.org Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:07:36 -0700 To: randomgrace at gmail.com, alboss at sisypheans.org, al.boss at metrokc.gov, kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, scn at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, ljbeedle at scn.org, bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com Subject: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? After 10 years or so of inaction it looks like the SCN board finally ceased re-upping with the secretary of state. I'm guessing that it would still be possible to re-initiate the organization if  anybody wanted to.  I'd be willing for the Public Sphere Project (a non-profit,  501.c.3 organization) to  absorb the assets (probably just the machine) to continue the operation of the machine.  I  think that my students could  take  some  degree of custodianship over  the machine as part of their civic  intelligence work. -- Doug -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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 ==essages posted on this list are also available on the web at: =* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Sat Jul 2 00:21:32 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 07:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? In-Reply-To: <1309589821.16989.YahooMailClassic@web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1309589821.16989.YahooMailClassic@web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Joel, When was the last time you held an annual SCNA membership meeting? Where are the minutes of that meeting, that I can read? When was the last time that the entire membership of SCNA met at such an annual meeting and elected you or any of your friends? Exactly who are these unnamed "four dedicated board members" who are the alleged SCNA board, and which of them pretends to hold which office? When and where are these supposed montly meetings? May any of us come to the alleged monthly meetings and speak with you about your stewardship of SCNA? Rod Clark On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Joel Ware, IV wrote: > Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:57:01 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Joel Ware, IV" > To: Steve Guest , Randy Groves , > ljbeedle at scn.org, douglas at publicsphereproject.org, alboss at sisypheans.org, > al.boss at metrokc.gov, kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, > steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, bb615 at scn.org, > anamioka at gmail.com, Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway , > Alan Miller <'akmyah at yahoo.com'> > Subject: SCN: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > > Folks, > I agree --- I would not assume that SCNA is dead.  In fact, it is very much alive. > As President, I am taking the necessary steps to reinstate our registration with the Secretary of State. > SCNA does have many key resources: we have a treasury, we have a few volunteers (including voicemail people), we have a very stable and solid SCN system, we have many loyal supporters, we have a viable Computer Giveaway program, and we have four dedicated Board members who meet every month.  We are paying our bills and serving users. > HOWEVER > We need more volunteers! > We have an exciting new direction in the area of Wikis for community use.We have the hardware to implement it, and we have a rough design -- but we need people to do it.   We also need a Webmaster and staff to sustain our existing Web, and develop/procure tools that make it easier for info providers to use. > I am very pleased to see a resurgence of interest.  I am sure that this is what SCNA needs. > > > Regards,          -Joel. > > Joel Ware, IV  > President, Seattle Community Network AssociationEmail: joelware at yahoo.com > Phone: (206) 250-5950 (mobile)   > > --- On Thu, 6/30/11, Randy Groves wrote: > > From: Randy Groves > Subject: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > To: "Steve Guest" > Cc: ljbeedle at scn.org, douglas at publicsphereproject.org, alboss at sisypheans.org, al.boss at metrokc.gov, kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, scn at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com, "Joel Ware, IV" , "Joel Ware, IV" , "Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway" > Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 12:32 PM > > I was a bit curious that Joel, Alan, and Ti were not included in the e-mail, but forwarded it to them as soon as I saw it. > > I think that it is a little early to start dancing on SCN's grave. > > -randy > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Steve Guest wrote: > > Hi Lois > > Having officially resigned from the SCNA board about 3 years ago I cannot > > tell you the current situation.  I do not see Joel or Ti listed in this > > email and they were still board members when I resigned. > > > As for the disposal of the SCNA assets and funds the articles of > > incorporation, the constitution and the by-laws where appropriate were all > > very clear - these must all go to CPSR.  Having tried to change a small > > aspect of these by-laws to give the board the ability to perform a required > > and expected management function - and failing - I would expect these asset > > and fund dispersal requirements have not changed.  Therefore they cannot > > simply be transferred to another non-profit. > > > The ACLU attorney who setup the rules did a great job.  I had discussions > > with four attorneys on ways to change these documents, including the one who > > did the original work.  There are copies of the documents on the web site > > should you need them.  I would have your own legal counsel look at these. > > > Steve > > > Dr. Steve Guest > > 206-364-5636 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of > > ljbeedle at scn.org > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:34 AM > > To: douglas at publicsphereproject.org; randomgrace at gmail.com; > > alboss at sisypheans.org; al.boss at metrokc.gov; kgillgren at igc.org; jj at scn.org; > > > scn at scn.org; douglas at cpsr.org; steve at advocate.net; jmabel at speakeasy.org; > > > jimh at scn.org; bb615 at scn.org; anamioka at gmail.com > > Subject: SCN: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > > > I would hate to see SCN die totally.  I am not sure how many active users > > we still have but I do have 4 non profits with directories on SCN that I > > keep up.  I also still try to keep up the Spirituality menu. > > > What would it mean to our users if your group took over Doug? > > > What does the SCN Constitution and By-laws say about the disposition of > > assets if we were to dissolve SCN? > > > Having gone though this with a church I do know that not much is required > > to reactive except for filing an up to date Constitution and By-laws and > > the fee.  At least that was all we had to do for the church. > > > Is there anyone left who can call a meeting of the members to approve any > > actions? > > > Lois > > > Original Message: > > ----------------- > > From: Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.org > > Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:07:36 -0700 > > To: randomgrace at gmail.com, alboss at sisypheans.org, al.boss at metrokc.gov, > > kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, scn at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, > > steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, ljbeedle at scn.org, > > > bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com > > Subject: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? > > > > > After 10 years or so of inaction it looks like the SCN board finally > > ceased re-upping with the secretary of state. > > > I'm guessing that it would still be possible to re-initiate the > > organization if  anybody wanted to.  I'd be willing for the Public > > Sphere Project (a non-profit,  501.c.3 organization) to  absorb the > > assets (probably just the machine) to continue the operation of the > > machine.  I  think that my students could  take  some  degree of > > custodianship over  the machine as part of their civic  intelligence > > work. > > > -- Doug > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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 > > ==essages posted on this list are also available on the web at: =* * * * * * > > *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * * > > > From ljbeedle at scn.org Sat Jul 2 00:02:24 2011 From: ljbeedle at scn.org (ljbeedle at scn.org) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 07:02:24 +0000 Subject: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken Gillgren Message-ID: <201107021402.HAA00872@scn4.scn.org> >BTW, I should tell you that I am actually the acting executive director of CPSR and I'm in the process of decommissioning CPSR at the moment. I'm handling the finances which could make things easier -- but it looks like CPSR will cease to exist soon which could complicate matters if SCNA were to go out of business. If CPSR is going out of business we need to redo the Constitution and By-laws for SCN before refiling with the state. CPSR going out of business before SCN, should we choose to close SCN would probably cause a legal nightmare with the state. Lois * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Sat Jul 2 08:44:26 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken Gillgren In-Reply-To: References: <1309590611.40515.YahooMailClassic@web34501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Joel, No, we don't have a community network at all. It's still the same situation as in 2007 when half a dozen of us met with you in a coffee shop in Fremont and expressed our hopes that SCN could once again become a volunteer-friendly group where the membership's ideas and votes determined how and where SCNA directed its energies in the future. Instead we still see a closed fiefdom with membership-unfriendly policies, disguised as a community network. Where are the hundreds of civically engaged people? Where are SCN's own principles? There's someone (Ti) focused on seeking corporate donations for a worthwhile program to donate old PCs. There's an accounting guy (Miller) who wants to contribute his bit to a good civic cause. And whoever the fourth board member is, it's someone whose voice is effectively silent on issues of public concern, or concern to volunteers, because I certainly haven't heard it. And that doesn't add up to a community network, not one in the mold of the original SCN. It's been yours to play with as your own little hobby-sized kingdom, and you've done exactly what you wanted to do with it for more than four years now. And that has amounted to a very small hill of very unnattractive beans. It's time for you to seriously think about taking up another hobby. Rod Clark On Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Douglas Schuler wrote: > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:18:34 -0700 > From: Douglas Schuler > To: jw4 at scn.org > Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken Gillgren > > > We have a community network for this.... > > -- Doug > > On Jul 2, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Joel Ware, IV wrote: > >> I can help with this part -- >> >> We have a group set up on Yahoo! for SCNA revitalization -- >> I will invite all on this list. >> >> Regards, >> -Joel. >> >> Joel Ware, IV >> >> Email: joelware at yahoo.com >> Phone: (206) 250-5950 (mobile) * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jw4 at scn.org Sat Jul 2 09:05:14 2011 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware, IV) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: RE: CPSR going, going, ... In-Reply-To: <201107021402.HAA00872@scn4.scn.org> Message-ID: <1309622714.19713.YahooMailClassic@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lois,Thanks for the tip --  I am so sorry to see CPSR going away -- such fun times, such high intentions. Regards,         -Joel. Joel Ware, IV Email: joelware at yahoo.com Phone: (206) 250-5950 (mobile)   --- On Sat, 7/2/11, ljbeedle at scn.org wrote: From: ljbeedle at scn.org Subject: Re: SCN: RE: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? - from Ken Gillgren To: "Douglas Schuler" , "Al Boss" , "Rod Clark" , "Randy Groves" , "jmabel" , "Kenneth" , "Steve Guest" , "Lois Beedle" , "J. Johnson" , "Steve" , "Jim Horton" , "AkiNamioka" , "Joel Ware" , "Joel Ware" , "Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway" , "scn" Cc: "Rod Clark" , "Randy Groves" , "jmabel" , "Kenneth" , "Steve Guest" , "Lois Beedle" Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 12:02 AM >BTW, I should tell you that I am actually the acting executive director of CPSR and I'm in the process of decommissioning CPSR at the moment. I'm handling the finances which could make things easier --  but it looks like CPSR will cease to exist soon which could complicate  matters if SCNA  were to go out  of business. If CPSR is going out of business we need to redo the Constitution and By-laws for SCN before refiling with the state.  CPSR going out of business before SCN, should we choose to close SCN would probably cause a legal nightmare with the state. Lois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jj at scn.org Sun Jul 3 01:42:52 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 01:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: B.s., legal and executive. In-Reply-To: <04ce01cc375a$2b0f0250$812d06f0$@com> Message-ID: First of all: I think everyone here is on the 'scn' list, so henceforth I will respond only to the list. Second: the coffee shop was actually in Wallingford (just one neighborhood off), but other than that I support Rod (attaboy): WHERE ARE THE MEETINGS? Third: Just as might be expected from his prior performances, Steve Guest has again successfully eluded comprehension. Article 13 ("Distribution upon dissolution") of the articles of incorporation says: If the Corporation obtains an exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, then upon dissolution of the Corporation under the Act, all of its assets remaining after payment of creditors shall be distributed to one or more organizations selected by the Board of Directors which are qualified as exempt from taxation under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code for one or more exempt purposes. In no event shall any of the Corporation's assets be distributed to the officers or directors of the Corporation. Notice: no mention of CPSR. Aside from the the 501c3 (non-profit) restriction, entirely at the discretion of the Directors. Fourth: "The ACLU attorney who setup the rules" did a LOUSY job. The By-laws ("rules"?) have been part of the problem, (This has been previously discussed.) Revisions are needed, but I think quite unlikely. Fifth: All of the Directors since about 2004 have been nonfeasant and invalid (if not illegal). They have not performed, would seem unable to peform, necessary executive functions. Any revival of SCNA requires their complete removal. Sixth: But who will step in? I remind everyone that in a previous discussion there were insufficient volunteers. === JJohnson ===================================================== On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Steve Guest wrote: > Hi Lois > Having officially resigned from the SCNA board about 3 years ago I cannot > tell you the current situation. I do not see Joel or Ti listed in this > email and they were still board members when I resigned. > > As for the disposal of the SCNA assets and funds the articles of > incorporation, the constitution and the by-laws where appropriate were all > very clear - these must all go to CPSR. Having tried to change a small > aspect of these by-laws to give the board the ability to perform a required > and expected management function - and failing - I would expect these asset > and fund dispersal requirements have not changed. Therefore they cannot > simply be transferred to another non-profit. > > The ACLU attorney who setup the rules did a great job. I had discussions > with four attorneys on ways to change these documents, including the one who > did the original work. There are copies of the documents on the web site > should you need them. I would have your own legal counsel look at these. > > Steve > > Dr. Steve Guest > 206-364-5636 * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From alboss at sisypheans.org Sun Jul 3 09:40:43 2011 From: alboss at sisypheans.org (Al Boss) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:40:43 -0700 Subject: SCN: Who's on scn? Message-ID: > > JJ mentioned: "I think everyone here is on the 'scn' list..." An intriguing bit of housekeeping. All the people who've been directly addressed in this email thread are on the scn distribution list (along with a few dozen others), but about half of us aren't on the list with the account we primarily use to send email from. (That's why Rod has had to forward so many messages to the list for us.) There does seem to be a lag with majordomo (I'm guessing it runs in batch processes via a cron job), but I've only noticed it being a few minutes. So far, I've noticed nothing that'd prevent us from using majordomo for these communications. If we want to do that, though, it'd probably benefit us if we were to subscribe the addresses from which we usually send email, just to make things simpler. The next question--do we want to use a list with 50 subscribers for a conversation with a dozen or so of us? Should we move it to a new list? Or just rest secure in the knowledge that the unsubscribe instructions are going out with every message, so anyone who's not interested can easily drop off? Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jw4 at scn.org Sun Jul 3 10:10:27 2011 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware, IV) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: SCNA: Common interest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1309713027.61530.YahooMailClassic@web34503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Al,Well said! Regards,         -Joel. Joel Ware, IV Email: joelware at yahoo.com Phone: (206) 250-5950 (mobile)   --- On Sat, 7/2/11, Al Boss wrote: From: Al Boss Subject: Re: RE: SCNA kaput -- irrevocably? To: jw4 at scn.org, "Steve Guest" , "Randy Groves" , ljbeedle at scn.org, douglas at publicsphereproject.org, kgillgren at igc.org, jj at scn.org, douglas at cpsr.org, steve at advocate.net, jmabel at speakeasy.org, jimh at scn.org, bb615 at scn.org, anamioka at gmail.com, "Ti Locke-Computer Giveaway" , "Alan Miller" Cc: scn at scn.org Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 8:49 AM Hi, everyone. I just tried to calculate out the cumulative number of years of service to SCN are reflected in the list of people in the "To" line, and the resulting number looks more like a zip code than it looks like anything else. That's a fantastic testimony to our commitment to the goals, ideas, and realities behind SCN. It's also a huge liability; it means we have had a lot of time to get on one another's nerves.  SCN and SCNA have always tended to draw the interest of really strong personalities who are passionate about what we're trying to do. That's probably the biggest contributing factor to our success and longevity. It's also probably the line along which we are, and always have been, the most likely to fracture and break. We can't learn from our past if we ignore it. We all know that.  At the same time, I think our organization's grip on life isn't all that strong. Now seems like a good time to focus on what we want to do and how we think we can get there. There will be a time to focus on what we didn't want to do and how we think we got where we are, and I think that'll be necessary to our continued survival, but I also think that if that's where we start then the risk is too high that it's where we end as well. We don't all like one another. We don't all necessarily respect one another. But we're what we have, and one way or another we all care and have something we think we can contribute or we wouldn't be on this email thread. I'm hoping we can all keep our focus on the common ground as much as we can for as long as we can.  Fair? Possible? Agreeable? Best, Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Sun Jul 3 10:30:54 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 17:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: Who's on scn? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Al, Majordomo has been working OK again since some time yesterday afternoon. The wider the participation and the more people whose ideas can be included, the better. A list with 45-50 potential volunteers is something, at least. But it also would be better to start having monthly volunteer meetings again, in person. I'd like to thank Joel for the invitation to the private SCN Yahoo group, to which I've subscribed. Among two years' (90-some) messages, there are no discussions about revitalizing SCN or anything else of any substance. It does indicate where the "board" meets, at Miller's office on the Eastside. There was one thing there worth reading, Steve Guest's resignation letter. Now I understand why he resigned, and respect his reason for doing so. Rod Clark On Sun, 3 Jul 2011, Al Boss wrote: > The next question--do we want to use a list with 50 subscribers for a > conversation with a dozen or so of us? Should we move it to a new list? Or > just rest secure in the knowledge that the unsubscribe instructions are > going out with every message, so anyone who's not interested can easily drop > off? * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Sun Jul 3 14:45:31 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 14:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: "SCNA kaput -- irrevocably?" addressees. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I point out that a key advantage of mailing lists is that the various addressees are free to manage their inclusion or exclusion without requiring everyone else to manage a list of addresses. For this reason I suggest dropping all the cc's and running this (and related) discussions through the 'scn' list. (If you are not on it, sign up.) If the 'scn' list is not appropriate, then someone suggest/start another list. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From kgillgren at igc.org Sun Jul 3 15:10:25 2011 From: kgillgren at igc.org (Kenneth) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 15:10:25 -0700 Subject: SCN: RE: "SCNA kaput -- irrevocably?" addressees. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the nudge, JJ, I've subscribed to the scn list. Ken Gillgren Gillgren Communication Services, Inc. Cultivating Civic Imagination and Engagement 1140 N. 192nd St., B226, Shoreline, WA 98133 (206) 755-9578 ken at gillgrencommunication.com Skype: ken.gillgren Web site: http://www.gillgrencommunication.com Blog: http://patterns.gillgrencommunication.com/ Global Village Telegraph on FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/GlobalVillageTelegraph Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kengillgren -----Original Message----- From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org] Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 2:46 PM To: Douglas Schuler Cc: Randy Groves; Al Boss; Al Boss; Ken Gillgren; scn; Douglas Schuler; Steve; Joe Mabel; Jim Horton; Lois Beedle; bb615 at scn.org; Aki Subject: "SCNA kaput -- irrevocably?" addressees. I point out that a key advantage of mailing lists is that the various addressees are free to manage their inclusion or exclusion without requiring everyone else to manage a list of addresses. For this reason I suggest dropping all the cc's and running this (and related) discussions through the 'scn' list. (If you are not on it, sign up.) If the 'scn' list is not appropriate, then someone suggest/start another list. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From kgillgren at igc.org Sun Jul 3 19:01:14 2011 From: kgillgren at igc.org (Kenneth) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 19:01:14 -0700 Subject: SCN: RE: "SCNA kaput -- irrevocably?" addressees. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <797B2015D82E466EB389B3EFF113F81F@kgillgrenPC> Oops, it's come to my attention that many of us may have forgotten about how to sign up to a majordomo mailing list or may not remember what address to use to request a subscription. It appears the following is all that's necessary (which, of course, I finally remembered after all those years so long ago of setting up and configuring majordomo distribution lists for the Wedgwood Community Council). Send the message to majordomo at scn.org Subject: [doesn't matter, can leave blank] Content: subscribe scn That's it. Ah, the good old days! (ugh!) Ken Gillgren Gillgren Communication Services, Inc. Cultivating Civic Imagination and Engagement 1140 N. 192nd St., B226, Shoreline, WA 98133 (206) 755-9578 ken at gillgrencommunication.com Skype: ken.gillgren Web site: http://www.gillgrencommunication.com Blog: http://patterns.gillgrencommunication.com/ Global Village Telegraph on FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/GlobalVillageTelegraph Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kengillgren -----Original Message----- From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org] Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 2:46 PM To: Douglas Schuler Cc: Randy Groves; Al Boss; Al Boss; Ken Gillgren; scn; Douglas Schuler; Steve; Joe Mabel; Jim Horton; Lois Beedle; bb615 at scn.org; Aki Subject: "SCNA kaput -- irrevocably?" addressees. I point out that a key advantage of mailing lists is that the various addressees are free to manage their inclusion or exclusion without requiring everyone else to manage a list of addresses. For this reason I suggest dropping all the cc's and running this (and related) discussions through the 'scn' list. (If you are not on it, sign up.) If the 'scn' list is not appropriate, then someone suggest/start another list. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Mon Jul 4 03:47:06 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 10:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: Getting together to keep SCN going In-Reply-To: References: <1309589821.16989.YahooMailClassic@web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Al Boss wrote: > But we're what we have, and one way or another we all care and have > something we think we can contribute or we wouldn't be on this email thread. > I'm hoping we can all keep our focus on the common ground as much as we can > for as long as we can. > > Fair? Possible? Agreeable? Al, Along those lines, here's a suggestion for anyone who wants to contribute. We've all signed volunteer agreements, and the present limitation for most of us is not having any access to do anything. Mailing lists - This was and could still be a valuable service to the community. Find out or make an educated guess at what caused the recent hours-long delays. If necessary, move majordomo to the least bogged down machine (scn9?). Someone technically inclined could volunteer to make sure it's working well. Does anyone but Randy, who is swamped, still have access to the system to do that? JJ, anyone? Web hosting for IPs - Solve IP help requests in a useful, timely manner. I can't think of anyone to ask any more, since George is gone, for actual ASAP help for an IP. Except for Randy, who needs to focus scarce time on technical projects. Anyone? Web hosting for people - Enable FTP (or scp, sftp...) for individual users. A few days ago I used Freeport to make a personal Web page, after a lot of frustration. Want to see it? http://www.scn.org/~rclark/ With Freeport, we actively prevent people from doing the good things they want to do with our well-intentioned services. Randy, Rhodes, JJ? SCN's Web pages - Note which IPs have updated their sites recently. Each week, feature one of them on the home page. Feature any recently added new IPs there, too (assuming the missing IP help is added). Lois, Ken, Al, Joe, anyone? Revise the topic menus to list as SCN IPs only those IPs whose SCN sites are still alive. Check the rest to see where they've gone and link to their new sites, if any. We probably have a few dozen active or semi-active IPs left. Anyone? (I'll do this if no one else volunteers.) Revise SCNA pages to reflect reality - Since we don't have much to go on, the factual basis for this is inadequate at present. Postpone indefinitely, until SCN becomes a functioning group again. But for the moment, at least avoid displaying pages that are obviously not true any more, such as the volunteer page that goes to the Not Found page at VolunteerMatch. Joel, anyone? Rod Clark * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From douglas at scn.org Fri Jul 8 17:42:57 2011 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: suggestion for SCNA Message-ID: <20110709004257.41DD0BF7E5@scn.org> I'd like to think about how to resolve this situation. I wanted to thank everybody for their contributions, particularly Rod (for the very clear explanation of the SCNA situation) and JJ (for his clarification in relation to the claim about CPSR being the only possible recipient of SCNA's resources in case of its demise). As for the composition of CPSR's board, I want to second the suggestion that the putative board of directors appoint new members and then resign. This approach would allow us to avoid the recriminatory discussions that I think we would all like to avoid. Joel, is this something that you and the other board members might consider? I'm willing to volunteer to be one of the new board members. I have no particular agenda except to encourage SCN to serve its original principles and to advance its technological base to some degree. How many volunteers do we need? Thanks! --- Doug * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From douglas at scn.org Fri Jul 8 21:13:44 2011 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: *slight* correction Message-ID: <20110709041344.B3ADABF7E3@scn.org> Slight correction to last note... I said "CPSR's board" when I meant "SCNA's board." Sorry about that! --- Doug * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Sat Jul 9 01:49:40 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 01:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: suggestion for SCNA In-Reply-To: <20110709004257.41DD0BF7E5@scn.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Doug Schuler wrote: > [....] > I'm willing to volunteer to be one of the new board members. I have no > particular agenda except to encourage SCN to serve its original > principles and to advance its technological base to some degree. How > many volunteers do we need? > Have you read the principles lately? They are quixotic at best, and largely irrelevant. It is useful to recall their context, when the World Wide Web was still in its infancy, and the up and coming services on the Internet were Gopher (anyone recall what that was--without looking it up?) and WAIS: Wide Area Information Service. (Hey, let's have a list of all the files available on local computers!) The principles are heavy on commitment to community, democracy, and the future, but rather light on how these commitments are to be served. ("[P]rovide access to databases and other services"; also "electronic town halls ... or electronic encyclopedias for enhanced access to information." Wow.) Nothing on how these services are to be provided. SCN's problems are not simply that the Directors went AWOL, but that various problems were not resolved. I think installing new Directors is a good start, but won't get far unless they _do_ have an agenda -- of what to fix. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From alboss at sisypheans.org Sat Jul 9 13:35:54 2011 From: alboss at sisypheans.org (Al Boss) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:35:54 -0700 Subject: SCN: Now what? Message-ID: Hi, all. JJ, as always, raises an interesting point, and it has prodded me into finally getting around to typing out something I've been thinking about for the past couple of weeks. The SCN/SCNA situation is pretty overwhelming when viewed as a whole. Leadership, direction, volunteer base, equipment, users, and information providers are all pretty lean, although we seem to be doing much better at the physical things (equipment and capital) than the ones that require people in the mix. The SCNA part, the need for an active board and a functioning structure, are obviously essential, and the bulk of our conversation over the last few weeks has been--correctly, I think--around that subject. Maybe because we have active participants in that conversation, my thoughts have wandered to another question. If I wanted to approach people about joining either SCN or SCNA (preferably both), I'd immediately have to explain what SCN is. What does it do? What's it for? JJ's analysis of our principles mirrors mine, but our conclusions might differ. Technology has changed tremendously since 1992, and specific needs have changed, but like JJ says these principles are short on specifics. The thing is, I think that's a good thing. Here's why: The big issues haven't gone away. They're not obsolete. What's happened is that we were a little too successful in our vision for the response to these issues, so much so that much of what we offered is available elsewhere from better-resourced providers that offer a much wider range of features. Free email? Check. Free Websites for nonprofits? Check. Internet access somewhere in your Seattle community? Libraries, community centers, Internet cafes. Free dial-up access? Available from several sources. I imagine you get my point. Aside from the computer giveaway program, much of the "stuff" of SCN, the actual services we provide, are either obsolete, commonplace, or no longer relevant. But that's just stuff, isn't it? It's not our ends that are flirting with irrelevance; it's our approach. Access: Are there technological things that people don't have easy access to, things that could make a positive difference in their lives? Yes. Same things as in the early 1990s? No way. Privacy: Folks need to consider that, now more than ever. We've always offered services that won't sell your data. I can see room for a big chunk of information about what that means, about what privacy means in this decade, about where we can still expect it and where it's completely gone. Back then, we were an alternative; now we're a haven--and we know why we are and how we are, and as part of our commitment to community we can educate the citizenry about why and how that matters. Democracy: Are there still things a bunch of smart, technically savvy, community-minded suckers (that's us) can offer, that'd help level the playing field a little bit, that'd help folks get some extra advantages they'd not otherwise have? Are there things we can do to help voices get heard? Do I even need to answer that? I can keep this up all day, but if you've read this far you probably see where I'm heading. And, you can probably see why JJ's question dovetails with mine so well. He asked about the agenda, about what to fix, and that's just what I was considering: what are the needs of today? What kind of problems would benefit from SCN being a part of the solution? What are our strengths? For example: Seattle Schools have special rooms where you go for computers. But when kids aren't in school, the technology is ubiquitous. In school all kids learn to keyboard, and to never look stuff up on Wikipedia, and that's about it. There's more if you pursue it, but suppose you want to learn how computers work rather the history of the floppy disk and how to use Word? Don't expect you'll find that at school. Maybe, maybe not. So, wait till college. If you make it in a local college, you'll learn that there is no operating system other than Windows. How many of our community colleges have more than one class using something that's not from Redmond? Musing: if SCN were where kids could build communities of interest, that they had to maintain, I wonder if there's an easy way we could sandbox them in a way they could learn about the back end as well as the front, without compromising our system? Stop, JJ, don't hurt me, I'm not saying _that_ is what we should do--or even could do. Other people already do that. (Freeshell.org and SDF come to mind.) I _am_ saying that Out There we've got a lot of people out of work, a generation of people who don't remember a time without computers, schools requiring community service, Amazon and Google with offices in a county that has a dearth of ways to learn Unix/Linux, and a host of other juicy challenges, and In Here we have some of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure to work with, stable equipment, expertise in hardware, software, community, education, security, flaming, analysis, coding, debating, and finding good coffee. Certainly there are some good matches in there. At the same time we're shoring up our leadership structure, we should also be thinking about what we might want SCN to do in this phase of its life. Directors will direct, but it's quite possible that what we want from directors (and what they want from us) should be different from what we have been doing since 1989 when we first started kicking around the ideas. Best, Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmabel at speakeasy.org Sat Jul 9 10:24:13 2011 From: jmabel at speakeasy.org (jmabel) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: suggestion for SCNA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: JJ, I still think that there is a good use for a non-profit, non-commercial, locally oriented space on the Internet. I also think that insofar as it can be maintained and even expanded, the computer giveaway program remains useful. Certainly the site I continue to maintain on SCN - the Crisis Resource Directory - remains as useful as ever, and no one else is providing an equivalent. I have tremendous doubt of the continuing value of SCN's very limited free dialup in an age where (among other things) anyone can go to the library and get 90 minutes of free time on a reasonably modern browser. -------------------- Joe Mabel On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, J. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > [....] > > I'm willing to volunteer to be one of the new board members. I have no > > particular agenda except to encourage SCN to serve its original > > principles and to advance its technological base to some degree. How > > many volunteers do we need? > > > > Have you read the principles lately? They are quixotic at best, and > largely irrelevant. It is useful to recall their context, when the World > Wide Web was still in its infancy, and the up and coming services on the > Internet were Gopher (anyone recall what that was--without looking it up?) > and WAIS: Wide Area Information Service. (Hey, let's have a list of all > the files available on local computers!) > > The principles are heavy on commitment to community, democracy, and the > future, but rather light on how these commitments are to be served. > ("[P]rovide access to databases and other services"; also "electronic > town halls ... or electronic encyclopedias for enhanced access to > information." Wow.) Nothing on how these services are to be provided. > > SCN's problems are not simply that the Directors went AWOL, but that > various problems were not resolved. I think installing new Directors is a > good start, but won't get far unless they _do_ have an agenda -- of what > to fix. > > === JJohnson ===================================================== > > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jmabel at speakeasy.org Sat Jul 9 10:19:37 2011 From: jmabel at speakeasy.org (jmabel) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: *slight* correction In-Reply-To: <20110709041344.B3ADABF7E3@scn.org> References: <20110709041344.B3ADABF7E3@scn.org> Message-ID: I largely agree with Doug, but I think it would be useful if one member of the existing Board would stay on for at least 6 months to have some continuity of institutional memory. We don't have to love each other for this to be a plus. -------------------- Joe Mabel On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Doug Schuler wrote: > > Slight correction to last note... > > I said "CPSR's board" when I meant "SCNA's board." > > Sorry about that! > > --- Doug > > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Sat Jul 9 14:13:03 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: suggestion for SCNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For all the deficiences, SCN (separate from any other "projects" of SCNA) has been useful as a non-profit, non-commercial platform for e-mail and web pages. That could be the core service to focus on. I think there is a case for dialup service (in some form), but that could be an extended discussion, and should be deferred to some of the other issues. For now I hope no one will be so reckless as to arbitrarily terminate it. === JJohnson ===================================================== On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, jmabel wrote: > JJ, I still think that there is a good use for a non-profit, non-commercial, > locally oriented space on the Internet. I also think that insofar as it can be > maintained and even expanded, the computer giveaway program remains useful. > Certainly the site I continue to maintain on SCN - the Crisis Resource Directory > - remains as useful as ever, and no one else is providing an equivalent. > > I have tremendous doubt of the continuing value of SCN's very limited free > dialup in an age where (among other things) anyone can go to the library and get > 90 minutes of free time on a reasonably modern browser. > > -------------------- > Joe Mabel > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Sat Jul 9 14:54:52 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 21:54:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Al Boss wrote: > Democracy: Are there still things a bunch of smart, technically savvy, > community-minded suckers (that's us) can offer, that'd help level the > playing field a little bit, that'd help folks get some extra advantages > they'd not otherwise have? Are there things we can do to help voices get > heard? Do I even need to answer that? Al, SCN could help voices get heard. As an example, a few days ago four City Council members did a walkthrough of Nickelsville, the homeless encampment currently located on a city-owned Superfund site on West Marginal Way. NV's Web site has been down for a while, reducing their ability to communicate with society. The day before the Council walkthrough, someone on the West Seattle Blog (which most of the people volunteering to help NV read) asked what things were like down there these days, and were there any recent photos of the place. Someone mentioned that a Facebook page had photos of a second prototype tiny plywood house that they'd built. No URL, just that it was on Facebook. Well, I found a handful of Nickelsville related Facebook pages, most of them outdated and none of them with that photo. Facebook has a zillion pages and I somehow couldn't pinpoint that one in the morass of stuff there. So the afternoon before the walkthrough, I posted my less recent photos of a NB potluck a few weeks ago before the second tiny house went up, at http://sc.sdf.org/ws/nickelsville/potluck/ where few people would notice compared to the exposure that SCN used to have. Simply put, it isn't on a site where hundreds of local neighborhood and issue-oriented grassroots groups and their members and readers gather, like SCN used to be. Even on the WS Blog, stories often scroll off the front page into oblivion within hours. They did film it, but they use a semi-accessible commercial service to host their longer videos, called Blip.tv. It has has a weird Flash-based interface that, unlike Youtube, successfully defeats me. Since Blip's interface is designed to actively prevent direct download of videos to watch, only allowing people to stream them while being exposed to whatever else is on screen surrounding it, I still don't know what WSB reported. Somewhere in all this, there is still a place for SCN, especially if it could respond to requests to publish topical material within a few hours. As another example, on Thursday I attended a forum where nine of the School Board candidates spoke, and made video clips of some of them speaking to the small crowd. Obviously not everyone is interested in this, but if the only practical alternative even for neighborhood-sized commercial video publishers like WSB for long form pieces is someplece like Blip.tv (they post the shorter ones on Youtube), then I'd either have to use a service like that or pay comparatively high data transfer costs at my small Web hosting provider, to let an Internet audience see the questions and discussions between the audience and these prospective public officials. If a group of us had a colocated box and thus enough bandwidth to do something interesting with it in respect to citizen video, that might be different. What is SCN's bandwith allotment at SPL? Is it enough to let us provide services like, for example, relaying live video from events, via someone's laptop Webcam over a Wifi connection? As a society, if the only people who have the modern equivalent of printing presses for this kind of material are places like WTV or The Seattle Channel, or outfits like Blip, where does that leave us? People flock to Facebook because it's convenient and has a huge audience, but in technological terms, regardless of their business practices. you just can't do that kind of thing on Facebook. In the 90s, SCN was always afraid of being too up to the minute, afraid of stepping on the toes of the ISPs. There was an ethos of needing to be sufficiently trailing-edge to avoid that. Well, to heck with that. No one wants to be like that all the time, but that's all that SCN has been doing or the last 10 years or more. No wonder you can't get anyone to care, or to contribute much, or to waste their time on obsolete backwards-facing stuff that they wouldn't want to use themselves and that doesn't solve any of their own current problems. * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From steve at groupworks.org Sat Jul 9 15:47:12 2011 From: steve at groupworks.org (Steve Guest) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:47:12 -0700 Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <072601cc3e8a$25033d40$6f09b7c0$@org> Well put Al A new board will be no better than what you have unless other things also change. The current board's apparent inability to be seen to do anything can only change when several other things happen. One of which is their self enforced requirement to listen to the membership and volunteers no matter what. Examples of what I mean here; 1) my proposal at the 2002 AGM to modify the principles to keep the "principles" but to update items such as the technology, but was rejected because I was told these Principles as written were sacrosanct, 2) the ability to address the loss of non-profits using our free web service because we could/would not host their own domain names because this was rejected by system volunteers as too hard to maintain, 3) the use of web based email was stopped by SPL because they did not want the increase in traffic on their network, and 4) inability of the system team to agree on how to create the next generation of SCN because the different people involved also had different views and in meeting after meeting could not get to a consensus even though we had the new equipment. The board had good solutions to all these issues; it does not take many volunteers to disrupt positive moves forward. The board members are legally and financially liable for the actions of any volunteer or user of SCN. Yet they do not have the ability to direct. At least I put into place the purchase of board insurance which allowed people to consider a board position. I will say that I personally rejected one of the more vocal users/members because when I asked why they wanted to be on the board the answer was something resembling - I want to be able to tell the volunteers to do what I want done. When I suggested the role of the board was to raise funds and direct but not to micro manage the same person responded something close to - oh that is okay I don't have time to either spend time raising funds or micro managing I just what to tell people what to do. If SCN and SCNA is going to survive please make sure those wanting to stand for new board positions actually understand the role of a board member. Board members must be prepared to risk things such as their own home should or when a volunteer does something which they considered irrelevant but turns out to be otherwise. They have to be able to get out there and raise funds. They have to be able to stand there while others who have no idea what a board member actually does shouts them down in public. They have to be able to read emails and refrain from flaming back when others accuse them of things when the writer only seeing the issue from their point of view. They have to be willing to represent all the members of SCN no matter how loud and obnoxious they are to others. They have to accept nothing they do will satisfy everyone except when they offer to resign. I wish you luck in finding or becoming a board member Steve Dr. Stephen Guest Director of Operations Groupworks Technology Support 206-364-5636 www.groupworks.org From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of Al Boss Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:36 PM To: SCN Subject: SCN: Now what? Hi, all. JJ, as always, raises an interesting point, and it has prodded me into finally getting around to typing out something I've been thinking about for the past couple of weeks. The SCN/SCNA situation is pretty overwhelming when viewed as a whole. Leadership, direction, volunteer base, equipment, users, and information providers are all pretty lean, although we seem to be doing much better at the physical things (equipment and capital) than the ones that require people in the mix. The SCNA part, the need for an active board and a functioning structure, are obviously essential, and the bulk of our conversation over the last few weeks has been--correctly, I think--around that subject. Maybe because we have active participants in that conversation, my thoughts have wandered to another question. If I wanted to approach people about joining either SCN or SCNA (preferably both), I'd immediately have to explain what SCN is. What does it do? What's it for? JJ's analysis of our principles mirrors mine, but our conclusions might differ. Technology has changed tremendously since 1992, and specific needs have changed, but like JJ says these principles are short on specifics. The thing is, I think that's a good thing. Here's why: The big issues haven't gone away. They're not obsolete. What's happened is that we were a little too successful in our vision for the response to these issues, so much so that much of what we offered is available elsewhere from better-resourced providers that offer a much wider range of features. Free email? Check. Free Websites for nonprofits? Check. Internet access somewhere in your Seattle community? Libraries, community centers, Internet cafes. Free dial-up access? Available from several sources. I imagine you get my point. Aside from the computer giveaway program, much of the "stuff" of SCN, the actual services we provide, are either obsolete, commonplace, or no longer relevant. But that's just stuff, isn't it? It's not our ends that are flirting with irrelevance; it's our approach. Access: Are there technological things that people don't have easy access to, things that could make a positive difference in their lives? Yes. Same things as in the early 1990s? No way. Privacy: Folks need to consider that, now more than ever. We've always offered services that won't sell your data. I can see room for a big chunk of information about what that means, about what privacy means in this decade, about where we can still expect it and where it's completely gone. Back then, we were an alternative; now we're a haven--and we know why we are and how we are, and as part of our commitment to community we can educate the citizenry about why and how that matters. Democracy: Are there still things a bunch of smart, technically savvy, community-minded suckers (that's us) can offer, that'd help level the playing field a little bit, that'd help folks get some extra advantages they'd not otherwise have? Are there things we can do to help voices get heard? Do I even need to answer that? I can keep this up all day, but if you've read this far you probably see where I'm heading. And, you can probably see why JJ's question dovetails with mine so well. He asked about the agenda, about what to fix, and that's just what I was considering: what are the needs of today? What kind of problems would benefit from SCN being a part of the solution? What are our strengths? For example: Seattle Schools have special rooms where you go for computers. But when kids aren't in school, the technology is ubiquitous. In school all kids learn to keyboard, and to never look stuff up on Wikipedia, and that's about it. There's more if you pursue it, but suppose you want to learn how computers work rather the history of the floppy disk and how to use Word? Don't expect you'll find that at school. Maybe, maybe not. So, wait till college. If you make it in a local college, you'll learn that there is no operating system other than Windows. How many of our community colleges have more than one class using something that's not from Redmond? Musing: if SCN were where kids could build communities of interest, that they had to maintain, I wonder if there's an easy way we could sandbox them in a way they could learn about the back end as well as the front, without compromising our system? Stop, JJ, don't hurt me, I'm not saying _that_ is what we should do--or even could do. Other people already do that. (Freeshell.org and SDF come to mind.) I _am_ saying that Out There we've got a lot of people out of work, a generation of people who don't remember a time without computers, schools requiring community service, Amazon and Google with offices in a county that has a dearth of ways to learn Unix/Linux, and a host of other juicy challenges, and In Here we have some of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure to work with, stable equipment, expertise in hardware, software, community, education, security, flaming, analysis, coding, debating, and finding good coffee. Certainly there are some good matches in there. At the same time we're shoring up our leadership structure, we should also be thinking about what we might want SCN to do in this phase of its life. Directors will direct, but it's quite possible that what we want from directors (and what they want from us) should be different from what we have been doing since 1989 when we first started kicking around the ideas. Best, Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Sat Jul 9 18:29:01 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:29:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: <072601cc3e8a$25033d40$6f09b7c0$@org> References: <072601cc3e8a$25033d40$6f09b7c0$@org> Message-ID: On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Steve Guest wrote: > 3) the use of web based email was stopped by SPL because they > did not want the increase in traffic on their network, Yes, this is a huge red flag. SPL's intention has seemed to be for SCN to remain below a small nuisance level of bandwidth, ever since the late 90s when I was in an SCN delegation at a couple of meetings with their people who were lukewarm at best on that. If SCN could do technically and societally interesting and current stuff, I think you'd have a lot more people willing to volunteer and contribute again. As far as board members having a dreary and onerous duty to go out and do fundraising, it's only if SCN doesn't do anything that interests or excites a lot of volunteers that there becomes a "need" for other types of fundraising from City grants or foundations or larger donors. I see the role of board members as one of making sure that interesting, worthwhile and exciting stuff can and does happen, stuff that the members would be overjoyed to see happen and that they'll gleefully support with loads of volunteer time and membership support. There's nothing wrong with aiming to have $25,000 in $25 yearly dues from 1,000 people, as SCN did have. That's an indication that a thousand people value what it's doing. I'm not quite so certain what a City grant means, but even if SCN were completely fundraising-funded at the same dollar level, without at the same time having any real support and interest among the volunteering public, SCN would not be going in the right direction. If you can be swayed by what enough volunteers feel they need or wish for badly enough that they'd eagerly contribute to building and doing those things, then volunteer time and monetary support for those projects should follow, as it did before. Decline to engage people in such a way for whatever reasons, and any talk about processes and policies and board duties doesn't make much difference. Thus ends my rant about what board members should focus on. * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Sun Jul 10 02:51:23 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 02:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: <072601cc3e8a$25033d40$6f09b7c0$@org> Message-ID: Steve, how about going away? You don't have much credibility here, having been in charge for much of SCN's decline. You have quite a tendency to misstate things, even (as we have just seen) to being outright wrong; your comments are not trustworthy. You had your chance; now go away. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Sun Jul 10 03:13:46 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My views differ from Rod's, which illustrates a problem: how do we agree on the fixes when we don't agree on the problems? Of course, "we" (the membership at large) wouldn't have to agree exactly on the problems and fixes if we had a Board of Directors competent enough to sort it out themselves. If the replacements don't come in with a strong consensus of what the problems are they are likely to be just as ineffective. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Sun Jul 10 06:19:47 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: JJ, It's good to see that the SCN home page was updated recently. Currently it features Cedar Butte and Floating Bridge Press, down at the bottom of the page, below all of the boilerplate re SCN gazing at its own navel that belongs on an "About" page. Wasn't the Cedar Butte page something that you wrote? Eventually, the home page could get back to not being a brochure that people want to read exactly once in their lives, and more of an interesting daily attraction for readers. Both of the IPs now featured there are good, interesting little things but not remotely among the larger current concerns that activists or the public in Seattle have. It's another indication that SCN isn't effectively engaging the many people who are involved in any of those things. But it's the first update in a long time, and it's a start. On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, J. Johnson wrote: > My views differ from Rod's, which illustrates a problem: how do we agree > on the fixes when we don't agree on the problems? > > Of course, "we" (the membership at large) wouldn't have to agree exactly > on the problems and fixes if we had a Board of Directors competent enough > to sort it out themselves. If the replacements don't come in with a strong > consensus of what the problems are they are likely to be just as > ineffective. * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jmabel at speakeasy.org Sun Jul 10 09:34:51 2011 From: jmabel at speakeasy.org (jmabel) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I disagree. A Board doesn't need to start with a strong consensus. It just needs to start with a willingness to work together and hash things out, including a willingness idividual not to get everything they want if they get a good bit of what they want. I'd actually be very doubtful that anyone who thinks they know exactly what needs to happen now would be a good person to be on the Board. What we need are a group of competent people willing to work together, first to work out how to keep things running on an interim basis, then to work out where to go from here to get SCN out of mere 'maintenance mode'. As I understand it, though, the current Board are the only ones who can take the next steps: 1) Move forward on registration with the State so the group is legally constituted. 2) Either express their willingness to appoint an interim board and then resign, themselves (with the caveat that I'd like to see one member stay a while for continuity of memory). At that point, a new Board can either hand over the assets appropriately to a successor organization or set a direction, fundraise, rebuild a membership organization, hold a general meeting an elections, etc. -------------------- Joe Mabel On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, J. Johnson wrote: > My views differ from Rod's, which illustrates a problem: how do we agree > on the fixes when we don't agree on the problems? > > Of course, "we" (the membership at large) wouldn't have to agree exactly > on the problems and fixes if we had a Board of Directors competent enough > to sort it out themselves. If the replacements don't come in with a strong > consensus of what the problems are they are likely to be just as > ineffective. > > === JJohnson ===================================================== > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From kgillgren at igc.org Sun Jul 10 10:22:00 2011 From: kgillgren at igc.org (Kenneth) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:22:00 -0700 Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2703832E7E2A4FA3B1DA1E1D9CE08FB1@kgillgrenPC> Well, although I hesitate to advance this as anything other than the messiest of all possible solutions (ain't democracy a pain), but wouldn't the "classic" resolution be something along these lines: 1. The CURRENT BOARD renews or otherwise reactivates SCN's registration with the state. 2. The CURRENT BOARD immediately schedules and convenes an ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING as the ultimate decision body for SCN (yeah, that probably means reactivating a means for people to enroll or otherwise confirm membership, but this would be the sole and final action of the current board) 3. The ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING determines and votes on a new board of directors (with any enabling "legislation" to vote on all positions, not just those that may have expired under whatever process the Board has been using in the absence of full membership meetings). 4. The NEWLY ELECTED BOARD is charged by the ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING with either dissolving the SCN corporation and turning assets over to a suitable successor (which I'm thinking is maybe not as likely now as it might have been a month ago), or leading a process of restructuring SCN with a new mission and goals, and hopefully new energy based on a broader commissioning. Clearly, current board members could still be re-elected, but they, along with any other candidates/nominees, would have the same opportunity for expressing their vision and commitment. Let the people decide. But let us make one last invitation to a wider "people" (those who continue to care about SCN or could be involved under a reborn mission and structure). I think that's what the SCN "of olde" may have done. No question, this would be a "put up or shut up" proposition based on who really can muster a strong enough constituency for a genuine rebirth (or genuine closure). Democracy is a pain. And the case could be made that there may be little passion for the energy that would be required for confirming membership or receiving new members. My only thought was that if there were sufficient spark to continue in any form, than some kind of full membership meeting, even if only 20 or so folks, could more objectively symbolize and support a launch into a new direction. And, needless to say, we'd probably have to recruit a facilitator with a terminal disease (sorry, "with nothing to lose") to oversee the proceedings. Or we could engineer a "friendly coup" from among the relatively few of us who, as Al notes, already know too much about each other to "just start over" with the same faces in the same places. This is my read on the current proposals, and I'm ultimately open to whatever unfolds. Just thinkin' Ken Gillgren _____ From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of Al Boss Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:36 PM To: SCN Subject: SCN: Now what? Hi, all. JJ, as always, raises an interesting point, and it has prodded me into finally getting around to typing out something I've been thinking about for the past couple of weeks. The SCN/SCNA situation is pretty overwhelming when viewed as a whole. Leadership, direction, volunteer base, equipment, users, and information providers are all pretty lean, although we seem to be doing much better at the physical things (equipment and capital) than the ones that require people in the mix. The SCNA part, the need for an active board and a functioning structure, are obviously essential, and the bulk of our conversation over the last few weeks has been--correctly, I think--around that subject. Maybe because we have active participants in that conversation, my thoughts have wandered to another question. If I wanted to approach people about joining either SCN or SCNA (preferably both), I'd immediately have to explain what SCN is. What does it do? What's it for? JJ's analysis of our principles mirrors mine, but our conclusions might differ. Technology has changed tremendously since 1992, and specific needs have changed, but like JJ says these principles are short on specifics. The thing is, I think that's a good thing. Here's why: The big issues haven't gone away. They're not obsolete. What's happened is that we were a little too successful in our vision for the response to these issues, so much so that much of what we offered is available elsewhere from better-resourced providers that offer a much wider range of features. Free email? Check. Free Websites for nonprofits? Check. Internet access somewhere in your Seattle community? Libraries, community centers, Internet cafes. Free dial-up access? Available from several sources. I imagine you get my point. Aside from the computer giveaway program, much of the "stuff" of SCN, the actual services we provide, are either obsolete, commonplace, or no longer relevant. But that's just stuff, isn't it? It's not our ends that are flirting with irrelevance; it's our approach. Access: Are there technological things that people don't have easy access to, things that could make a positive difference in their lives? Yes. Same things as in the early 1990s? No way. Privacy: Folks need to consider that, now more than ever. We've always offered services that won't sell your data. I can see room for a big chunk of information about what that means, about what privacy means in this decade, about where we can still expect it and where it's completely gone. Back then, we were an alternative; now we're a haven--and we know why we are and how we are, and as part of our commitment to community we can educate the citizenry about why and how that matters. Democracy: Are there still things a bunch of smart, technically savvy, community-minded suckers (that's us) can offer, that'd help level the playing field a little bit, that'd help folks get some extra advantages they'd not otherwise have? Are there things we can do to help voices get heard? Do I even need to answer that? I can keep this up all day, but if you've read this far you probably see where I'm heading. And, you can probably see why JJ's question dovetails with mine so well. He asked about the agenda, about what to fix, and that's just what I was considering: what are the needs of today? What kind of problems would benefit from SCN being a part of the solution? What are our strengths? For example: Seattle Schools have special rooms where you go for computers. But when kids aren't in school, the technology is ubiquitous. In school all kids learn to keyboard, and to never look stuff up on Wikipedia, and that's about it. There's more if you pursue it, but suppose you want to learn how computers work rather the history of the floppy disk and how to use Word? Don't expect you'll find that at school. Maybe, maybe not. So, wait till college. If you make it in a local college, you'll learn that there is no operating system other than Windows. How many of our community colleges have more than one class using something that's not from Redmond? Musing: if SCN were where kids could build communities of interest, that they had to maintain, I wonder if there's an easy way we could sandbox them in a way they could learn about the back end as well as the front, without compromising our system? Stop, JJ, don't hurt me, I'm not saying _that_ is what we should do--or even could do. Other people already do that. (Freeshell.org and SDF come to mind.) I _am_ saying that Out There we've got a lot of people out of work, a generation of people who don't remember a time without computers, schools requiring community service, Amazon and Google with offices in a county that has a dearth of ways to learn Unix/Linux, and a host of other juicy challenges, and In Here we have some of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure to work with, stable equipment, expertise in hardware, software, community, education, security, flaming, analysis, coding, debating, and finding good coffee. Certainly there are some good matches in there. At the same time we're shoring up our leadership structure, we should also be thinking about what we might want SCN to do in this phase of its life. Directors will direct, but it's quite possible that what we want from directors (and what they want from us) should be different from what we have been doing since 1989 when we first started kicking around the ideas. Best, Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljbeedle at scn.org Sun Jul 10 07:26:49 2011 From: ljbeedle at scn.org (ljbeedle at scn.org) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:26:49 +0000 Subject: SCN: Re: Now what? Message-ID: <201107102126.OAA27505@scn4.scn.org> Thank you Ken. I was wondering if anyone would remember we were trying to fix the tree and not the forest. Renewing our filing with the state should be easy unless the rules and law have changed a lot in the last few years. So please someone, take care of first things first so we can continue. Then you all can work on the forest. I am just trying to prune a few leaves but wonder if all my time is being spent wisely if we are just going to have the same discussion over and over. Yes, I am feeling discouraged right now but I shall continue pruning my few leaves. Just someone set up to the plate and file with the state. Joel, I believe this would be you. Lois > Well, although I hesitate to advance this as anything other than the > messiest of all possible solutions (ain't democracy a pain), but wouldn't > the "classic" resolution be something along these lines: > > 1. The CURRENT BOARD renews or otherwise reactivates SCN's registration with > the state. > 2. The CURRENT BOARD immediately schedules and convenes an ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP > MEETING as the ultimate decision body for SCN (yeah, that probably means > reactivating a means for people to enroll or otherwise confirm membership, > but this would be the sole and final action of the current board) > 3. The ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING determines and votes on a new board of > directors (with any enabling "legislation" to vote on all positions, not > just those that may have expired under whatever process the Board has been > using in the absence of full membership meetings). > 4. The NEWLY ELECTED BOARD is charged by the ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING with > either dissolving the SCN corporation and turning assets over to a suitable > successor (which I'm thinking is maybe not as likely now as it might have > been a month ago), or leading a process of restructuring SCN with a new > mission and goals, and hopefully new energy based on a broader > commissioning. > > Clearly, current board members could still be re-elected, but they, along > with any other candidates/nominees, would have the same opportunity for > expressing their vision and commitment. Let the people decide. But let us > make one last invitation to a wider "people" (those who continue to care > about SCN or could be involved under a reborn mission and structure). > > I think that's what the SCN "of olde" may have done. > > No question, this would be a "put up or shut up" proposition based on who > really can muster a strong enough constituency for a genuine rebirth (or > genuine closure). Democracy is a pain. And the case could be made that there > may be little passion for the energy that would be required for confirming > membership or receiving new members. My only thought was that if there were > sufficient spark to continue in any form, than some kind of full membership > meeting, even if only 20 or so folks, could more objectively symbolize and > support a launch into a new direction. And, needless to say, we'd probably > have to recruit a facilitator with a terminal disease (sorry, "with nothing > to lose") to oversee the proceedings. > > Or we could engineer a "friendly coup" from among the relatively few of us > who, as Al notes, already know too much about each other to "just start > over" with the same faces in the same places. This is my read on the current > proposals, and I'm ultimately open to whatever unfolds. > > Just thinkin' > > Ken Gillgren > > > _____ > > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of Al Boss > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:36 PM > To: SCN > Subject: SCN: Now what? > > > Hi, all. > > JJ, as always, raises an interesting point, and it has prodded me into > finally getting around to typing out something I've been thinking about for > the past couple of weeks. > > The SCN/SCNA situation is pretty overwhelming when viewed as a whole. > Leadership, direction, volunteer base, equipment, users, and information > providers are all pretty lean, although we seem to be doing much better at > the physical things (equipment and capital) than the ones that require > people in the mix. > > The SCNA part, the need for an active board and a functioning structure, are > obviously essential, and the bulk of our conversation over the last few > weeks has been--correctly, I think--around that subject. Maybe because we > have active participants in that conversation, my thoughts have wandered to > another question. > > If I wanted to approach people about joining either SCN or SCNA (preferably > both), I'd immediately have to explain what SCN is. What does it do? What's > it for? > > JJ's analysis of our principles mirrors mine, but our conclusions might > differ. Technology has changed tremendously since 1992, and specific needs > have changed, but like JJ says these principles are short on specifics. The > thing is, I think that's a good thing. Here's why: > > The big issues haven't gone away. They're not obsolete. What's happened is > that we were a little too successful in our vision for the response to these > issues, so much so that much of what we offered is available elsewhere from > better-resourced providers that offer a much wider range of features. > > Free email? Check. > Free Websites for nonprofits? Check. > Internet access somewhere in your Seattle community? Libraries, community > centers, Internet cafes. > Free dial-up access? Available from several sources. > > I imagine you get my point. Aside from the computer giveaway program, much > of the "stuff" of SCN, the actual services we provide, are either obsolete, > commonplace, or no longer relevant. > > But that's just stuff, isn't it? It's not our ends that are flirting with > irrelevance; it's our approach. > > Access: Are there technological things that people don't have easy access > to, things that could make a positive difference in their lives? Yes. Same > things as in the early 1990s? No way. > > Privacy: Folks need to consider that, now more than ever. We've always > offered services that won't sell your data. I can see room for a big chunk > of information about what that means, about what privacy means in this > decade, about where we can still expect it and where it's completely gone. > Back then, we were an alternative; now we're a haven--and we know why we are > and how we are, and as part of our commitment to community we can educate > the citizenry about why and how that matters. > > Democracy: Are there still things a bunch of smart, technically savvy, > community-minded suckers (that's us) can offer, that'd help level the > playing field a little bit, that'd help folks get some extra advantages > they'd not otherwise have? Are there things we can do to help voices get > heard? Do I even need to answer that? > > I can keep this up all day, but if you've read this far you probably see > where I'm heading. And, you can probably see why JJ's question dovetails > with mine so well. He asked about the agenda, about what to fix, and that's > just what I was considering: what are the needs of today? What kind of > problems would benefit from SCN being a part of the solution? What are our > strengths? > > For example: Seattle Schools have special rooms where you go for computers. > But when kids aren't in school, the technology is ubiquitous. In school all > kids learn to keyboard, and to never look stuff up on Wikipedia, and that's > about it. There's more if you pursue it, but suppose you want to learn how > computers work rather the history of the floppy disk and how to use Word? > Don't expect you'll find that at school. Maybe, maybe not. > > So, wait till college. If you make it in a local college, you'll learn that > there is no operating system other than Windows. How many of our community > colleges have more than one class using something that's not from Redmond? > > Musing: if SCN were where kids could build communities of interest, that > they had to maintain, I wonder if there's an easy way we could sandbox them > in a way they could learn about the back end as well as the front, without > compromising our system? Stop, JJ, don't hurt me, I'm not saying _that_ is > what we should do--or even could do. Other people already do that. > (Freeshell.org and SDF come to mind.) > > I _am_ saying that Out There we've got a lot of people out of work, a > generation of people who don't remember a time without computers, schools > requiring community service, Amazon and Google with offices in a county that > has a dearth of ways to learn Unix/Linux, and a host of other juicy > challenges, and In Here we have some of the smartest people I've ever had > the pleasure to work with, stable equipment, expertise in hardware, > software, community, education, security, flaming, analysis, coding, > debating, and finding good coffee. Certainly there are some good matches in > there. > > At the same time we're shoring up our leadership structure, we should also > be thinking about what we might want SCN to do in this phase of its life. > Directors will direct, but it's quite possible that what we want from > directors (and what they want from us) should be different from what we have > been doing since 1989 when we first started kicking around the ideas. > > Best, > > Al > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From douglas at publicsphereproject.org Sun Jul 10 20:16:24 2011 From: douglas at publicsphereproject.org (Douglas Schuler) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:16:24 -0700 Subject: SCN: Re: Now what? In-Reply-To: <201107102126.OAA27505@scn4.scn.org> References: <201107102126.OAA27505@scn4.scn.org> Message-ID: <523BD865-2D21-4DAC-A9B9-4903324154C7@publicsphereproject.org> I just looked the secretary of state web site and it looks like Joel took care of this soon after I brought the issue up. (http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=contains&name=Seattle+Community+Network+Association&ubi= ) It might be useful to see the documents that were submitted. Joel? Thanks! -- Doug On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:26 AM, ljbeedle at scn.org wrote: > Thank you Ken. I was wondering if anyone would remember we > were trying to fix the tree and not the forest. Renewing > our filing with the state should be easy unless the rules > and law have changed a lot in the last few years. > > So please someone, take care of first things first so we > can continue. Then you all can work on the forest. I am > just trying to prune a few leaves but wonder if all my time > is being spent wisely if we are just going to have the same > discussion over and over. > > Yes, I am feeling discouraged right now but I shall > continue pruning my few leaves. Just someone set up to the > plate and file with the state. Joel, I believe this would > be you. > > Lois > > >> Well, although I hesitate to advance this as anything > other than the >> messiest of all possible solutions (ain't democracy a > pain), but wouldn't >> the "classic" resolution be something along these lines: >> >> 1. The CURRENT BOARD renews or otherwise reactivates > SCN's registration with >> the state. >> 2. The CURRENT BOARD immediately schedules and convenes > an ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP >> MEETING as the ultimate decision body for SCN (yeah, that > probably means >> reactivating a means for people to enroll or otherwise > confirm membership, >> but this would be the sole and final action of the > current board) >> 3. The ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING determines and votes on > a new board of >> directors (with any enabling "legislation" to vote on all > positions, not >> just those that may have expired under whatever process > the Board has been >> using in the absence of full membership meetings). >> 4. The NEWLY ELECTED BOARD is charged by the ANNUAL > MEMBERSHIP MEETING with >> either dissolving the SCN corporation and turning assets > over to a suitable >> successor (which I'm thinking is maybe not as likely now > as it might have >> been a month ago), or leading a process of restructuring > SCN with a new >> mission and goals, and hopefully new energy based on a > broader >> commissioning. >> >> Clearly, current board members could still be re-elected, > but they, along >> with any other candidates/nominees, would have the same > opportunity for >> expressing their vision and commitment. Let the people > decide. But let us >> make one last invitation to a wider "people" (those who > continue to care >> about SCN or could be involved under a reborn mission and > structure). >> >> I think that's what the SCN "of olde" may have done. >> >> No question, this would be a "put up or shut up" > proposition based on who >> really can muster a strong enough constituency for a > genuine rebirth (or >> genuine closure). Democracy is a pain. And the case could > be made that there >> may be little passion for the energy that would be > required for confirming >> membership or receiving new members. My only thought was > that if there were >> sufficient spark to continue in any form, than some kind > of full membership >> meeting, even if only 20 or so folks, could more > objectively symbolize and >> support a launch into a new direction. And, needless to > say, we'd probably >> have to recruit a facilitator with a terminal disease > (sorry, "with nothing >> to lose") to oversee the proceedings. >> >> Or we could engineer a "friendly coup" from among the > relatively few of us >> who, as Al notes, already know too much about each other > to "just start >> over" with the same faces in the same places. This is my > read on the current >> proposals, and I'm ultimately open to whatever unfolds. >> >> Just thinkin' >> >> Ken Gillgren >> >> >> _____ >> >> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On > Behalf Of Al Boss >> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:36 PM >> To: SCN >> Subject: SCN: Now what? >> >> >> Hi, all. >> >> JJ, as always, raises an interesting point, and it has > prodded me into >> finally getting around to typing out something I've been > thinking about for >> the past couple of weeks. >> >> The SCN/SCNA situation is pretty overwhelming when viewed > as a whole. >> Leadership, direction, volunteer base, equipment, users, > and information >> providers are all pretty lean, although we seem to be > doing much better at >> the physical things (equipment and capital) than the ones > that require >> people in the mix. >> >> The SCNA part, the need for an active board and a > functioning structure, are >> obviously essential, and the bulk of our conversation > over the last few >> weeks has been--correctly, I think--around that subject. > Maybe because we >> have active participants in that conversation, my > thoughts have wandered to >> another question. >> >> If I wanted to approach people about joining either SCN > or SCNA (preferably >> both), I'd immediately have to explain what SCN is. What > does it do? What's >> it for? >> >> JJ's analysis of our principles mirrors mine, but our > conclusions might >> differ. Technology has changed tremendously since 1992, > and specific needs >> have changed, but like JJ says these principles are short > on specifics. The >> thing is, I think that's a good thing. Here's why: >> >> The big issues haven't gone away. They're not obsolete. > What's happened is >> that we were a little too successful in our vision for > the response to these >> issues, so much so that much of what we offered is > available elsewhere from >> better-resourced providers that offer a much wider range > of features. >> >> Free email? Check. >> Free Websites for nonprofits? Check. >> Internet access somewhere in your Seattle community? > Libraries, community >> centers, Internet cafes. >> Free dial-up access? Available from several sources. >> >> I imagine you get my point. Aside from the computer > giveaway program, much >> of the "stuff" of SCN, the actual services we provide, > are either obsolete, >> commonplace, or no longer relevant. >> >> But that's just stuff, isn't it? It's not our ends that > are flirting with >> irrelevance; it's our approach. >> >> Access: Are there technological things that people don't > have easy access >> to, things that could make a positive difference in their > lives? Yes. Same >> things as in the early 1990s? No way. >> >> Privacy: Folks need to consider that, now more than ever. > We've always >> offered services that won't sell your data. I can see > room for a big chunk >> of information about what that means, about what privacy > means in this >> decade, about where we can still expect it and where it's > completely gone. >> Back then, we were an alternative; now we're a haven--and > we know why we are >> and how we are, and as part of our commitment to > community we can educate >> the citizenry about why and how that matters. >> >> Democracy: Are there still things a bunch of smart, > technically savvy, >> community-minded suckers (that's us) can offer, that'd > help level the >> playing field a little bit, that'd help folks get some > extra advantages >> they'd not otherwise have? Are there things we can do to > help voices get >> heard? Do I even need to answer that? >> >> I can keep this up all day, but if you've read this far > you probably see >> where I'm heading. And, you can probably see why JJ's > question dovetails >> with mine so well. He asked about the agenda, about what > to fix, and that's >> just what I was considering: what are the needs of today? > What kind of >> problems would benefit from SCN being a part of the > solution? What are our >> strengths? >> >> For example: Seattle Schools have special rooms where you > go for computers. >> But when kids aren't in school, the technology is > ubiquitous. In school all >> kids learn to keyboard, and to never look stuff up on > Wikipedia, and that's >> about it. There's more if you pursue it, but suppose you > want to learn how >> computers work rather the history of the floppy disk and > how to use Word? >> Don't expect you'll find that at school. Maybe, maybe not. >> >> So, wait till college. If you make it in a local college, > you'll learn that >> there is no operating system other than Windows. How many > of our community >> colleges have more than one class using something that's > not from Redmond? >> >> Musing: if SCN were where kids could build communities of > interest, that >> they had to maintain, I wonder if there's an easy way we > could sandbox them >> in a way they could learn about the back end as well as > the front, without >> compromising our system? Stop, JJ, don't hurt me, I'm not > saying _that_ is >> what we should do--or even could do. Other people already > do that. >> (Freeshell.org and SDF come to mind.) >> >> I _am_ saying that Out There we've got a lot of people > out of work, a >> generation of people who don't remember a time without > computers, schools >> requiring community service, Amazon and Google with > offices in a county that >> has a dearth of ways to learn Unix/Linux, and a host of > other juicy >> challenges, and In Here we have some of the smartest > people I've ever had >> the pleasure to work with, stable equipment, expertise in > hardware, >> software, community, education, security, flaming, > analysis, coding, >> debating, and finding good coffee. Certainly there are > some good matches in >> there. >> >> At the same time we're shoring up our leadership > structure, we should also >> be thinking about what we might want SCN to do in this > phase of its life. >> Directors will direct, but it's quite possible that what > we want from >> directors (and what they want from us) should be > different from what we have >> been doing since 1989 when we first started kicking > around the ideas. >> >> Best, >> >> Al >> > > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn Douglas Schuler douglas at publicsphereproject.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Sphere Project http://www.publicsphereproject.org/ Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (project) http://www.publicsphereproject.org/patterns/ Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (book) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11601 * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Mon Jul 11 02:31:27 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In general terms I would agree with you. But the various instantiations of the SCNA Board over the years have not been able to hash things out, and I don't see much hope of a replacement Board doing much better. Note that I am not saying anyone should (or even could) expect to know "exactly what needs to happen", but they should _start_ out of the gate at least going in the same direction. The notion of transferring assets to a successor organiation I believe is a relict of the initial discussion, based on the lapsed registration, If the Board is replaced there is no need for a successor organization. === JJohnson ===================================================== On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, jmabel wrote: > I disagree. A Board doesn't need to start with a strong consensus. It just needs > to start with a willingness to work together and hash things out, including a > willingness idividual not to get everything they want if they get a good bit of > what they want. I'd actually be very doubtful that anyone who thinks they know > exactly what needs to happen now would be a good person to be on the Board. What > we need are a group of competent people willing to work together, first to work > out how to keep things running on an interim basis, then to work out where to go > from here to get SCN out of mere 'maintenance mode'. > > As I understand it, though, the current Board are the only ones who can take the > next steps: > 1) Move forward on registration with the State so the group is legally > constituted. > 2) Either express their willingness to appoint an interim board and then resign, > themselves (with the caveat that I'd like to see one member stay a while for > continuity of memory). > > At that point, a new Board can either hand over the assets appropriately to a > successor organization or set a direction, fundraise, rebuild a membership > organization, hold a general meeting an elections, etc. > > -------------------- > Joe Mabel > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, J. Johnson wrote: > > > My views differ from Rod's, which illustrates a problem: how do we agree > > on the fixes when we don't agree on the problems? > > > > Of course, "we" (the membership at large) wouldn't have to agree exactly > > on the problems and fixes if we had a Board of Directors competent enough > > to sort it out themselves. If the replacements don't come in with a strong > > consensus of what the problems are they are likely to be just as > > ineffective. > > > > === JJohnson ===================================================== > > > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From steve at groupworks.org Mon Jul 11 10:28:49 2011 From: steve at groupworks.org (Steve Guest) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:28:49 -0700 Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: <072601cc3e8a$25033d40$6f09b7c0$@org> Message-ID: <011c01cc3fef$ff912e20$feb38a60$@org> Thanks JJ this is a great example for others of exactly what I was talking about. Dr. Stephen Guest Groupworks Technology Support 206-364-5636 www.groupworks.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of J. Johnson Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 2:51 AM To: scn at scn.org Subject: Re: SCN: RE: Now what? Steve, how about going away? You don't have much credibility here, having been in charge for much of SCN's decline. You have quite a tendency to misstate things, even (as we have just seen) to being outright wrong; your comments are not trustworthy. You had your chance; now go away. === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From steve at groupworks.org Mon Jul 11 13:50:33 2011 From: steve at groupworks.org (Steve Guest) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:50:33 -0700 Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016c01cc400c$2e345ab0$8a9d1010$@org> Joe the challenge is getting to any consensus for the board is not easy when it is forced to listen and be directed by the previously discussed membership. The board has to assume the volunteers are working for the good of the organization. It only takes one of the volunteers to become loud, disruptive, dictatorial or inactive for a form of negative cancer to grow inside the organization. Add to this a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a board member by many volunteers. Ti summed up the challenge of SCN really well - getting things done within SCN is like herding bumble bees. Until the concept of membership is well formulated the board is almost powerless to get things done but personally responsible for every volunteer's actions. This is one of the joys of a charity over a true limited company. The lack of creditability of board members is the apparent outcome. Those outside the board see only their part of the elephant. They complain about the elephant from their point of view. They are correct to complain but they need to remember the board has to deal with the whole elephant. Thus some are concerned about the phone lines and the equipment, some are concerned about the giveaway program, some are concerned about the budget, others are concerned about the legal standing and they each complain about the whole from their myopic view of the organization. The board has to try to deal fairly with everything. For example; on the legal side alone, let us just look at some of the not creditable work the board had to do which JJ so easily sweeps away. Setting up the copyright agent details before the federal government closed our web site down, the attending court (several times) to stop the seizure of all our equipment when a free web site owner published something inappropriate about someone else, the moves to stop the equipment being seized when a free web site owner started up a credit card scam, the meetings to pacify someone who felt a volunteer was so rude to them they made a police complaint, the setting up of state required background checks for any volunteer we allowed to interact with a vulnerable member of the public and the list goes on and on, but no one who makes sure the equipment is running or is maintaining phones lines would know this or even considers it relevant. The adding of new volunteers to the board may be the solution. Yet these new board members need to know they do not get a free hand because of the way SCN/SCNA was setup. They also need to understand they are taking on a large level of responsibility. Steve Dr. Stephen Guest Groupworks Technology Support 206-364-5636 www.groupworks.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of jmabel Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:35 AM To: J. Johnson Cc: sc at sdf.lonestar.org; scn at scn.org Subject: Re: SCN: RE: Now what? I disagree. A Board doesn't need to start with a strong consensus. It just needs to start with a willingness to work together and hash things out, including a willingness idividual not to get everything they want if they get a good bit of what they want. I'd actually be very doubtful that anyone who thinks they know exactly what needs to happen now would be a good person to be on the Board. What we need are a group of competent people willing to work together, first to work out how to keep things running on an interim basis, then to work out where to go from here to get SCN out of mere 'maintenance mode'. As I understand it, though, the current Board are the only ones who can take the next steps: 1) Move forward on registration with the State so the group is legally constituted. 2) Either express their willingness to appoint an interim board and then resign, themselves (with the caveat that I'd like to see one member stay a while for continuity of memory). At that point, a new Board can either hand over the assets appropriately to a successor organization or set a direction, fundraise, rebuild a membership organization, hold a general meeting an elections, etc. -------------------- Joe Mabel On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, J. Johnson wrote: > My views differ from Rod's, which illustrates a problem: how do we agree > on the fixes when we don't agree on the problems? > > Of course, "we" (the membership at large) wouldn't have to agree exactly > on the problems and fixes if we had a Board of Directors competent enough > to sort it out themselves. If the replacements don't come in with a strong > consensus of what the problems are they are likely to be just as > ineffective. > > === JJohnson ===================================================== > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Mon Jul 11 15:22:28 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:22:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: <016c01cc400c$2e345ab0$8a9d1010$@org> References: <016c01cc400c$2e345ab0$8a9d1010$@org> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Steve Guest wrote: > For example; on the legal side alone, let us just look at some of the not > creditable work the board had to do which JJ so easily sweeps away. Setting > up the copyright agent details before the federal government closed our web > site down, Steve, Something might have happened later, but I was on the board in 1998 when Tim McCormack, an intellectual property lawyer who was also on the SCNA board at that time, nudged us to adopt the latest practices about that. We published the name and other information regarding the copyright agent on the site as required, and followed the letter of the new regulations. Our first copyright agent was a volunteer, Eric, who was experienced in nonprofit matters, and during my term on the board we never to my knowledge had any serious problem at all regarding our copyright agents. Whatever might have happened later about "setting up the copyright agent details before the federal government closed our web site down" is as much a mystery to me as many of the other things that happened later on with SCN. I'll take your word for it that something untoward happened in relation to that, especially in light of the recent lapse in state registration. But initially in 1998, and on through 2001, it was not at all a difficult matter, largely because we had good legal advice at that time from Tim. Because of his knowlegeable guidance, it was simply yet another minor detail to be attended to during those years, and always was kept current. > the setting up of state required background checks for any > volunteer we allowed to interact with a vulnerable member of > the public and the list goes on and on, but no one who makes > sure the equipment is running or is maintaining phones lines > would know this or even considers it relevant. That was another change that happened at about the same time, as SCNA along with many other nonprofits responded to the legal and regulatory environment by adding a formal paperwork requirement. It was adopted by the then board as a routine step to stay in compliance, and to be seen to be responsible in light of the general adoption of this added measure by more of the local nonprofit world at that time. This, again, was simply adopted at a regular board meeting after some discussion on both sides of the issue, since by no means had it been a universal practice among local groups then. I believe Seattle Works, for one, had this in place before SCNA. It did mean some extra work for the volunteer coordinator or whoever was handling the paperwork. But this is now done and has been done routinely for years everywhere, for example by school secretaries before parents can accompany groups of students on field trips. We adopted this in 1998 or 1999. I hope this clarifies several things for you about these matters. Also, I believe that that these examples of yours do not excuse nor explain the way you took SCNA from being a functioning membership organization to being a membership organization in name only, run by you and an unelected board. * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Mon Jul 11 17:35:56 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: References: <016c01cc400c$2e345ab0$8a9d1010$@org> Message-ID: Steve Guest wrote: > the setting up of state required background checks for any > volunteer we allowed to interact with a vulnerable member of > the public Steve, After thinking about this for a bit, I'm certain that this was in fact not required by the State of Washington at the time we adopted it. That's why there were two sides to the discussion. But even though there was no state mandate to do it, an increased risk of liability was becoming apparent. Rod Clark * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Tue Jul 12 02:59:08 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: RE: Now what? In-Reply-To: <011c01cc3fef$ff912e20$feb38a60$@org> Message-ID: A good example of what? That "[t]he board had good solutions to all these issues; it does not take many volunteers to disrupt positive moves forward"? I think it was in 2004 (about the time you said you couldn't get anything done because I was bothering you too much) that I gave up trying to get a straight answer out of you. So how come we never saw any of these "good solutions" in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010? How come we never even saw _the Board_? Are you going to blame me for not having the legally required annual membership meetings? No, not a great example, because I didn't provide any details. There is no doubt that you were in charge (do you deny it?), and I reckon the folks here saw for themselves how thoroughly you misstated the Articles in your message of 30 June. Rod has called you on several other cases in your followup message, and I could cite more but I wasn't trying to prove that your statements are unreliable: that is already demonstrated. You had your chance, and you blew it. You are a large part of the problem, not the solution. Go away. === JJohnson ===================================================== On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Steve Guest wrote: > Thanks JJ this is a great example for others of exactly what I was talking > about. > > Dr. Stephen Guest > Groupworks Technology Support > 206-364-5636 www.groupworks.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org] On Behalf Of J. Johnson > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 2:51 AM > To: scn at scn.org > Subject: Re: SCN: RE: Now what? > > Steve, how about going away? You don't have much credibility here, having > been in charge for much of SCN's decline. You have quite a tendency to > misstate things, even (as we have just seen) to being outright wrong; your > comments are not trustworthy. You had your chance; now go away. > > === JJohnson ===================================================== > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org > In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn > * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Tue Jul 12 09:06:35 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: Re: Now what? In-Reply-To: <523BD865-2D21-4DAC-A9B9-4903324154C7@publicsphereproject.org> References: <201107102126.OAA27505@scn4.scn.org> <523BD865-2D21-4DAC-A9B9-4903324154C7@publicsphereproject.org> Message-ID: Doug, The direct link for the current Secretary of State info is http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=601651259 It lists only two Governing Persons: Joel Ware, IV and Ti Locke. It's my impression from seeing a few of these reports that a) all of the directors' names on the form submitted to the state would be listed on the Secretary of State's information page for the org and b) two is an unusually small number. Rod Clark On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Douglas Schuler wrote: > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:16:24 -0700 > From: Douglas Schuler > To: Lois Beedle , Joel Ware > Subject: Re: SCN: Re: Now what? > > I just looked the secretary of state web site and it looks like > Joel took care of this soon after I brought the issue up. > (http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=contains&name=Seattle+Community+Network+Association&ubi=) > > It might be useful to see the documents that were submitted. > > Joel? > > Thanks! > > -- Doug * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From jj at scn.org Thu Jul 14 01:29:51 2011 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Three levels. Message-ID: It would be useful to keep in mind that what we have discussed here of late is actually three sets of problems, at three different levels. One is various problems with SCN ("a project of SCNA"). I think these deserve to be discussed. But strictly speaking, only the Board of Directors of SCNA, which is legally in control of SCNA and its projects, has the responsibility (and privilege) of addressing the problems with SCN (though it may, and even should, delegate). The second problem here, and really the main one, is the Board's failure to perform their various responsibilities. In regards of SCNA's rules the membership's sole recourse is to elect replacement Directors. (Joel shouldn't get too comfy, though, as there are other levers, outside the rules.) Which gets to the third level: the Board having failed to maintain any kind of membership roll, who's to vote them out? Or a new Board in? This is a problem with the by-laws (or even the Articles of incorporation), that there is no alternate (or even automatic) means of ejecting the Board when it fails. The last level needs further discussion, but we probably need to replace the Board first. That new Directors ae willing to act will be insufficient if they have no idea of how to proceed (this is the crux of my earliar comment that will need a strong sense of what to do), which is why we need to discuss issues on the first level. But our main focus should be: dump the Board! === JJohnson ===================================================== * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn From sc at sdf.lonestar.org Tue Jul 19 22:08:50 2011 From: sc at sdf.lonestar.org (sc at sdf.lonestar.org) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SCN: [4SCNA] SCNA Directors' Meeting -- monthly, 3rd Thurs, 8:00pm, 7/21/2011, 8:00 pm (fwd) Message-ID: Earlier I mentioned that on Joel's SCNA group at Yahoo, the SCNA board was described as meeting every third Thursday at Miller's office on the Eastside. That no longer appears to be the case. If anyone was interested in attending, there won't be a meeting there, but there will be a meeting this Thursday. Instead, the SCNA board will meet by phone and video conferencing. Joel was forthcoming enough to invite people who were interested in our previous discussion to join the SCNA Yahoo group, and I see today that there are now 14 members of that group. Even though I couldn't find a way on Yahoo to list the membership, I believe that's about twice what the membership was last month, so that's a positive development. As far as I can tell, from the SCNA board members listed on the state paperwork, there are currently two board members, Joel and Ti. I have a prior commitment related to the primary election campaign, and can't be there at the audio/video conference. But I hope that some of you can, and that things will get resolved in a good way to appoint or elect additional active board members and open up SCNA to more volunteer efforts. The meeting is probably not open to non-invitees, or at least the SCNA Yahoo group is not open except to invitees. But in the hope that interested people could ask Joel about participating - and so far he's been open to inviting people into the Yahoo group - here's the meeting date and time. Rod Clark ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 20 Jul 2011 02:56:56 -0000 From: 4SCNA at yahoogroups.com To: 4SCNA at yahoogroups.com Subject: [4SCNA] SCNA Directors' Meeting -- monthly, 3rd Thurs, 8:00pm, 7/21/2011, 8:00 pm Reminder from: 4SCNA Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/4SCNA/cal SCNA Directors' Meeting -- monthly, 3rd Thurs, 8:00pm Thursday July 21, 2011 8:00 pm - 9:30 pm (This event repeats every month on the third Thursday.) Location: Telecon: https://meet.webex.com/0jXS1xMyXu7B009Olfq8jKUbdU0 Phone: 206-250-5950 Notes: Meeting URL: Meeting Number:813 825 906 Join Audio Only: 1. Call a number:+1-408-600-3700 (US/Canada) 2. Enter meeting number:813 825 906 All Rights Reserved Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/