SCN: Re: Now what?

[ljbeedle at 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