SCN: SCNA general meeting 6/9.

[Randy Groves]

A couple of salient points that JJ left out - I don't know whether he'd
left by that time or not, but there was definitely extended discussion of
the fact that there are still many people who do not have any connection,
or have minimal connection, and also that the current web is moving farther
and farther away from web pages that can easily support people with various
disabilities.

One of the challenges that the implementation of new hardware/software is
intended to address is the fact that the current environment of the SCN
system is based on, well, let's just put it bluntly - ancient technology.
If we are going to be able to attract anyone to help in implementing any of
the facilities above - or any new facilities, for that matter, we need to
have a platform that is a known quantity amongst prospective volunteers.
There were several very good suggestions for software that we could
implement that allow access to some of the current aspects of the web,
Twitter, blogs, etc., within a textual framework.

But the technology is only a tool.  It exists to be the vehicle to express
whatever vision/path that this organization decides is the way forward -
and deciding what that vision is, fleshing it out, and making it real takes
people.  All kinds of people, not just techies.

Joel was right in his statement that the meeting was somewhat of a decision
point - do we attempt to rejuvenate the organization - is there still
interest in doing the work to make it have more relevance that it does
today? Or do we start the process for an orderly shutdown?  I was very
heartened by the attendance and the discussion.   I think that there is
still much power and relevance in the original principles statements and
the commitments to access, service, democracy, world community and the
future.

It's not going to be easy - and success is by no means assured.  We have
challenges. We do not want to implement new services that leave our current
user base out.  We need to find a way to move the dialup and BBmenu logins
to a platform that can be supported by today's technology.  We need to
rejuvenate the membership in the organization.  A membership drive and an
election needs to be completed - as soon as possible, preferably within the
next three months.

We decided on setting up a mailing list (I know, another one) with folks
that attended the meeting as the initial members. But perhaps
scn at scn.orgmight be the appropriate venue instead. But that doesn't
give folks that
are on this list that DON'T want to discuss the future of SCN/SCNA to weigh
in on whether they want to be a part of the discussion or not.  I could go
either way.

-randy

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Ken Gillgren <kgillgren at igc.org> wrote:

> Thanks for the update, JJ, I was hoping to attend but had a last-minute
> project deadline I had cover during that time.
>
> I am still interested in keeping up with SCN and exploring options for its
> future.
>
> I don't think the issue is so much in the area of technical innovation or
> marketable services as it is in addressing the persistent gap in access and
> effective use of current/emerging technologies to undergird broader and
> more effective civic engagement by the traditionally disenfranchised,
> increasingly including immigrant and refugee communities.
>
> I think there are needs that something like SCN could position itself to
> address at a lower scale, with greater impact, but probably not in its
> current form/structure. And I have no sense of legacy support issues, that
> is, SCN's stated or assumed obligations to its legacy constituents, however
> many that includes.
>
> Just thinkin...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken Gillgren
>
>
> On 6/10/2012 11:02 AM, J. Johnson wrote:
>
>> There were eventually 15 people at the SCNA meeting, some old-hands (Joel,
>> Alan, Randy, Doug Schuler, Jean Buskin, etc.), some who "want to help".
>> The bottom line: Randy has some new hardware on which he has setup
>> Wikimedia and some blogging software, demonstrating that they could be
>> made available on SCN.  Particular ramifications don't seem to have been
>> considered, hadn't been discussed by the time I left (15:15).  One person
>> did ask what the library thinks about this; the library hasn't been asked.
>> If bandwidth requirements (supplied through the library) exploded Joel
>> thinks it would be practicable to rent rack-space somewhere.
>>
>> Various interesting comments.  At the start Joel said the focus was on
>> finding "new services more attractive to the public ... or a phased plan
>> for shutting the operation down." No follow-up on that last option. (Also:
>> "We can come up with leadng [?] ideas just as well as anyone else....")
>>
>> The past wasn't under consideration.  Alan: "Going over history not as
>> useful as going ahead...."  (Unless, of course you want to learn from it.)
>>
>> Randy said there were three or four new e-mail accounts in the last year;
>> someone else (Alan?) said it was more like a dozen. As to the number of
>> SCNA members, based on those paying dues in the past year, Joel said
>> "about ten".
>>
>> Doug made a very pertinent comment: "There has to be some kind of social
>> innovation that sells the project."  That is, just having some technology
>> is not enough.  (But not discussed.)
>>
>> Various other chit-chat, but these are the highlights.  Unless things got
>> going hot and furious after I left you didn't miss much not attending.
>>
>> === 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn/attachments/20120610/cc3dcb34/attachment.html>