All Agenda Items ================ This file has been built from the information that has been provided on the menu. To download this file, start your capture function now, and press "c" to continue; or "go pda", choose "items of interest", then "board agenda". Last update: Sat Apr 15 10:36:08 EDT 1995 ============================================================================ begin: freenet/board/agenda/agenda19.txt ============================================================================ National Capital FreeNet Board Meeting April 18, 1995 - 7:00 PM 6th Floor Lounge, Robertson Hall (Admin Bldg) Carleton University AGENDA 1. Approval of the minutes of the March 21, 1995 meeting 2. Review of the Agenda 3. External access to "ncf" newsgroups: a) Presentations by representative(s) of Ottawa on-line community b) Discussion of our relationship with other computer networks serving the National Capital area c) Making selected "ncf" newsgroups available (David Blackwood) externally d) Limiting postings to "ncf" newsgroups (Brett Delmage) to NCF members e) Using "ott" or other USENET newsgroups instead of creating "ncf" newsgroups f) Off-line newsreaders 4. Annual General Meeting Post-Mortem 5. Proposed on-line voting procedure Note - Let's have a short break at around 8:30 pm 6. Review of IRC restrictions with respect to 2 hour limit and definition of "peak time" 7. Reports a) Board Planning Committee b) Executive Committee c) Operations Update (Lisa Donnelly) d) Fundraising Update (Gordon Pearson) e) Financial Report (Lisa Donnelly) 8. Next meeting 9. Adjournment =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/minutes/minute18 ============================================================================ DRAFT Minutes of the National Capital FreeNet Board of Directors Meeting held on 21 March 1995 Honeywell Room - RMOC/HQ - 111 Lisgar Street, Ottawa, Ontario The following Board members were in attendance: David Blackwood, Scott Catterill, Julie Chahal, Jessica Cohen, Brett Delmage, Yvonne Dionne, Rosaleen Dixon, Chris Hawley, Marc Labelle, David Loan, Brian Monkman, Andrew Patrick, Dave Sutherland, Richard Taylor, Stephen Toy. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Dave Sutherland at 7:00 p.m. 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Dave Sutherland opened the floor for nominations to fill the positions of President, 1st Vice-President, 2nd Vice-President, Treasurer and Secretary. On a motion by Stephen Toy, seconded by David Loan, Dave Sutherland was nominated to serve a second-term as President. There being no further nominations, Dave Sutherland was acclaimed as President. After some discussion it was decided that a secret vote would be held to fill the 1st and 2nd Vice-President positions. As a result of the ballot, Andrew Patrick will serve as 1st Vice-President and Julie Chahal will serve as 2nd Vice-President. On a motion from Andrew Patrick, seconded by Richard Taylor, it was unanimously agreed that the Executive Director should act as Treasurer until such time as a person with the appropriate background can be recruited to serve as Treasurer. On a motion from Julie Chahal, seconded by Chris Hawley, Richard Taylor was nominated to serve as Secretary. There being no further nominations, Richard Taylor was acclaimed. It was noted by Dave Sutherland that, following the next election two years hence, a meeting should be held to establish a process for the Election of Officers. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Julie Chahal, seconded by Andrew Patrick, the Minutes of the meeting held 6 February 1995 were approved. 4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES a) BY-LAWS It was confirmed that the by-laws on-line have not yet been modified to reflect the changes made at the Annual General Meeting. The Executive Director was directed to look into having the by-laws properly reviewed by the Corporations Branch. b) SIGNING AUTHORITY In response to inquiries, it was noted that the insurance policy and bank documents have been updated to reflect the new Board membership. It was noted that information relating to the insurance policy will be distributed for inclusion in the orientation kit. 5. REVIEW OF THE AGENDA It was agreed that items 6 and 7 would be moved to the end of the agenda after Other Business. It was suggested that, in future, these reports should be put on-line beforehand and Board Members could then come to the meetings prepared to ask questions. 6. REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ROLE AND COMPOSITION After extensive debate, it was agreed - on a motion from Dave Loan, seconded by Andrew Patrick - that the Executive Committee composition remain the same for the time being but that there is a need to review the existing mandate. The Executive Committee is, therefore, made up of the Officers of the Corporation and the Executive Director. Since the Executive Director is now responsible for day-to-day operations and staff supervision, the Executive Committee will not need to retain responsibility for operations. The Executive Director will report directly to the President, as previously arranged. The Executive Committee remains responsible for implementing disciplinary actions as needed and on recommendation from the "Complaints" volunteer, Robert Pless. 7. CREATION OF BOARD PLANNING COMMITTEE On a motion by Brett Delmage, seconded by Yvonne Dionne, it was agreed that a planning committee would be established. A recommendation for the composition of this committee will be brought forward at the next Board meeting. Chris Hawley was tasked with organizing a meeting of this planning committee. 8. DEVELOPMENT OF ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF MAJOR BOARD TASKS The Executive Committee was tasked with bringing forward a list of major annual tasks to the next Board. 9. BOARD UNMODERATED NEWSGROUP On a motion from Julie Chahal, seconded by Jessica Cohen, it was agreed that the Executive Director should establish a schedule for Board members to monitor and respond to Board unmoderated newsgroup. 10. OTHER BUSINESS a) DRAFTING AN ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY Robert Pless distributed a proposal for the development of an Acceptable Use Policy and enforcement of the User Agreement. After some discussion, it was determined that this policy should be a part of the User Agreement and that Robert is on the right track. The remaining items under OTHER BUSINESS were deferred to the next meeting. It was agreed that representatives from the on-line community could be invited by Chris Hawley to make 15-minute presentations on these topics. 11. FINANCIAL REPORT Detailed information relating to the Financial Report are available from the Executive Director. 12. OPERATIONS UPDATE On a motion from Brett Delmage, seconded by Jessica Cohen, the Board agreed to authorize the quoted expenditure to have the "Survival Guide" printed immediately. 13. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 April 1995. Location to be announced. [6th floor Lounge Robertson Hall (Admin Building), Carleton University] Deadline for agenda items: 10:00pm Tuesday, 11 April, 1995. E-mail to Richard Taylor, aa333. I4. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by David Blackwood, seconded by Andrew Patrick, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 5 April 1995 RPT/kam =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/expnews.txt ============================================================================ Making Selected NCF Newsgroups Available Externally From: David Blackwood To: aa331@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Motion Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 22:34:55 EST I would like to add a motion to the agenda to the effect that: Moved that the National Capital FreeNet make selected ncf.* newsgroups available upon request, and read-only if necessary, to the larger Ottawa online community. Thanks. -- David J. Blackwood From: David Blackwood To: aa331@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Motion Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 12:27:32 EST This has been extensively debated in a number of newsgroups. Here is a copy of my most recent posting on the subject. Dave Newsgroups: ncf.agm95.general,ott.general From: dave@revcan.ca (David Blackwood) Subject: Re: Freenet BOD: Positions on Exporting of 'ncf' private newsgroups. Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 23:47:22 GMT Some months back I proposed a motion to the FreeNet Board of Directors, that the FreeNet export some or all of the ncf.* newsgroups to the rest on the local community via existing mechanisms. (Those existing mechanisms are an nntp feed with cunews, and the uucp connection from cunews to revcan.) I even offered to make that a one way export of groups by marking them all essentially read only, thus ensuring that only NCF members could post to those groups. That motion was overwhelmingly defeated. The general gist of the discussion was that the NCF's mandate was to serve its members and that the ncf.* newsgroups constituted a valuable resource for attracting and keeping an active contributing membership. I used every argument that I could muster to no avail, and attempted to counter all arguments to the contrary. Exporting newsgroups will reduce load, not increase it; it would make the FreeNet a better net citizen; it would help attract and retain more technical volunteers; etc. No go. The FreeNet board at that time wished to insulate the FreeNet as a community unto itself, separate, apart, and distinct from the non-FreeNet community. After today the FreeNet will have a new board and at the first opportunity I will re-propose my motion. However, given the amount of disinformation about news being stated by some authoritative and well known FreeNet users I remain unconvinced that a new motion will fare any better. In the meantime a new facility has been added to FreeNet that allows all of the non-newsgroup data on FreeNet to be made freely available to Internet users via a Web browser such as Mosaic, a facility that is not even available to FreeNet users. This should also have required Board approval, although I do not recall it ever having been brought forward. So now we have the bizarre circumstance where all of a sig's data for example can be read remotely but not the newsgroup that accompanies it. The reverse of what we had sought to do originally. Someone has suggested converting ncf.* newsgroups to ott.* newsgroups. For some limited number of groups, this is undoubtedly a good idea. Many ncf.* groups were created which should have been created under the ott, and in some cases ont and can hierarchies. In many other cases, this is not such a good idea. The NCF has tended on occasion to create ncf.* newsgroups for subjects for which perfectly valid and suitable newsgroups already exist elsewhere. Replicating the entire structure of Usenet under the ott hierarchy is no better an idea the replicating it under the ncf hierarchy was. The mechanism for creating a new ott newsgroup is to post a proposal to ott.general and see if it gets the support of the community. It's not unlike the procedure for a new can newsgroup which is posted regularly to can.config. (If there are enough new proposals we may have to create an ott.config to hold them. :-)) Beware though that few proposals succeed and none get rubber-stamped. Too often a proposal consists of little more that "I think x would be a good idea for the convenience of those of us using broken news readers, or who don't have the time to read news regularly." These types of proposals will not likely get the consensus required for creation. It is time that the FreeNet became a good news neighbour and not just a large news neighbour. A site's contribution is not measured by the volume of its postings. If it were it would be inversely proportional. And this is not a technical or a resource issue, it is purely a policy issue. And by the way, the FreeNet did approve a uucp connection to the local online community for the transmission of mail. It was up to the volunteers who requested this to implement it. This however is an separate issue entirely from the distribution of news. -- David J. Blackwood Systems Integration Manager Room 1139, 400 Cumberland Street Inter-Office Communications Section Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8 Office Communications Division Voice: 613 957-9305 Fax: 613 952-1095 Revenue Canada Internet: dave@revcan.ca =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/blocking.txt ============================================================================ Blocking External Postings to NCF Newsgroups There has been discussion from time to time in various places about the issue of external users (those who do not use an account ID from NCF) who post articles to internal newsgroups (those with a "ncf..." name). I initiated some earlier discussion of this under the heading of "Blocking Anonymous Postings" in the Board moderated group. The discussion that followed indicates that there is some support for such a move. Before the issue gets buried in the on-going flood of new issues, it seems appropriate to bring the issue to a Board meeting, review it, and decide whether or not to implement such a block. At present, our policy is not to distribute internal newsgroups (the "ncf..." series) to other systems beyond NCF. This is on the basis that we should retain some feeling of local community in the NCF newsgroups by restricting access to NCF members only. On the whole, it seems to work to the benefit of these newsgroups. The difficulty is that there is the occasional posting from an external user (a non-NCF account) that in most cases is designed to irritate or harass NCF newsgroup users. To be consistent with our policy of limiting NCF groups to the NCF community, such postings should be blocked. Paul Tomblin, the news administrator, indicates that such a block can be implemented easily if the Board agrees to such a move. To implement this, the Board should pass the following motion: Moved that NCF will implement a block on the external news feed that will prevent the delivery of external postings to the "ncf" hierarchy of newsgroups. -------------- Al Seaman March 13/94 =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/export3.txt ============================================================================ Motion to the FreeNet Board of Directors That the FreeNet export some or all of the ncf.* newsgroups to the rest of the local community via existing mechanisms. (Those existing mechanisms are an nntp feed with cunews, and the uucp connection from cunews to revcan.) Advantages: · The mission statement emphasizes community networking, thus implying the whole community; not just the 40 000 currently registered on FreeNet. · Reduce demand for phone lines. · It would put less load on freenet-news. If freenet-news exported to cunews, and so on, the existing news distribution path could be used for those who wish to grab those groups. Each person reading news on the FreeNet individually places a load on freenet-news, as opposed to groups of people putting on a similar load (ie., more people on each connection and thus less connections). · More convenient to those with alternative online access, especially those with off-line readers in place. · Make the FreeNet a better net citizen · Help attract and retain more technical volunteers. We have lost some very skilled volunteers based on their convictions that NCF should not be a closed shop. · an experimental text-to-http converter already makes non-newsgroup FreeNet data available to external Web users Concerns: · Having a set of local-only groups is very useful to our members. The Usenet system lets you target content on the basis of some criterion, be it geographic, political, or topic. The NCF groups, like our active NCF users, have a distinct flavour that is very important. Targeting specific users or interests creates something special here that is worth preserving. · The ncf.* newsgroups constitute a valuable resource for attracting and keeping an active contributing membership. To read the NCF groups you have to login to the NCF. This allows us to ask for donations at registration time and thereafter. · People from outside would see the newsgroups but not the context · Unless we restrict posting to ncf members, volume of posting in each group would increase, making the group less accessible, and adding to system load, and eventually increasing our Onet fees. · People from outside might tend to be users but not contributors -- talk but no help · People have the option to telnet in, even if it is very slow, if they really want NCF groups. Technical Considerations: This simply requires a change to the news configuration file on freenet-news in order to allow the export of the newsgroups that are on the Freenet. Broader Issues: Who is the 'community' that the Freenet serves? Our mission statement says it is the people and organizations of this region. Our priorities, developed during the summer, but not formally adopted, say: · Individuals who would not otherwise have access to telecomputing · Non-profit organizations that serve the community · Other individuals living in the region · Individuals and organizations with an interest in the region. People who dial into Achilles and run local BBS's might fall into the third priority group, but they already have the same or better access to ncf as anyone else. Variations: Read Only Motion by BrettDelmage/Al Seaman: Moved that NCF will implement a block on the external news feed that will prevent the delivery of external postings to the "ncf" hierarchy of newsgroups. Friendly amendment by Chris Hawley: "Moved that the NCF will implement a block on the external news feed that will prevent external postings to newsgroups in the 'ncf' hierarchy except those which have been designated 'writable' by the sending site. [ by the board? EC? ]" Marking the exported ncf newsgroups read only would ensure that only NCF members could post to those groups. You would still have to login to FreeNet to post. This would require that ALL the systems that receive the groups cooperate. We could mark them as read-only, but every other system would have to do the same for the scheme to work. We could not accept any incoming posts to ncf.* groups, making the external nature read-only from our point of view, but then we would risk a situation where there is traffic on the groups that NCF users do not see. Off-line Newsreader An off-line reader wouldreduce load on the phone lines, but increase CPU load. Right now the target is one CPU for 100 phone lines... this is going to have to increase to at least 1 CPU for 50 phone lines (to make the cost $1250/line instead of $1000). Export some ncf Newsgroups based on a vote by participants The scope of individual newsgroups could become rather confusing. Some of the ncf.* newsgroups could be converted to ott.* newsgroups. Many ncf.* groups could have been created under the ott.*, and in some cases ont.* and can.* hierarchies. There could be a broad range of very active ott.* groups carried on the NCF and many other systems in town. Perhaps we should be educating our members on the role that ott.* groups could be taking, and have a procedure where NCF members can request that ott.* groups be added just like they can request NCF groups. SIGS could have the choice to decide whether they wish to be carried outside of NCF or not. The mechanism for creating a new ott.* newsgroup is to post a proposal to ott.general and see if it gets the support of the community. Few proposals succeed and none get rubber-stamped. Newsgroup subjects for which valid and suitable newsgroups already exist elsewhere would not be approved. We would need to make good cases that the discussion is particularly pertinent and unique to Ottawa. Create a can.freenet.* hierarchy This approach would retain ncfs visibility and identity as the source of the newsgroup. -- Julie Chahal President, InfoMagic Services .....information & management consulting Vice President, National Capital FreeNet Voice: (613) 226-3915 Trustee, Nepean Public Library Fax: 226-7817 =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/postagm.txt ============================================================================ POST-AGM ANALYSIS Notes from a meeting to capture the lessons learned from the 1995 Annual General Meeting and election of Board members, Monday, 3 April 1995, 7:30 - 10:30 pm Prepared by: Lisa K. Donnelly (am412) Edited by: Garth Graham (aa127) ATTENDING: Ian Allen Matthew Darwin Rosaleen Dickson Lisa Donnelly Garth Graham Miranda Gray Richard Taylor AGENDA LIST: 1. Do we continue to receive proxy votes? 2. Recruitment 3. Preparing candidates 4. Timeline and motions from the floor 5. AGM task descriptions 6. Number and type of newsgroups 7. Software issues and voting security 8. Refining AGM software and documentation into a package for use by others 9. By-law changes for 1995 1. Do we continue to receive proxy votes? * Information: We received 0 proxy ballots in 1994 and received 2 proxy ballots in 1995 * Options discussed: a)Abolish all together b)Allow more voting time c)look for a software solution * Recommendation: Software solution, particularly related to voting on motions, is complex and not completely secure. We are undecided - OK for now, and perhaps not sufficient "problem" to bother revisiting. 2. Active recruitment of Board candidates * Information: There is concern over the appearance and possible mis-interpretation of giving a rubber stamp to an "official" slate of candidates. Active, qualified persons are desirable but some present felt that recruitment can be done subtly and informally. * Options discussed: Have a formal Board nominating committee or have the recruiting done in a grass roots method. * Recommendation: Discussion divided on the need and mode of active recruitment. No conclusion - should be revisited by the Board. 3. Preparing candidates for electioneering methods and the realities of the campaign * Information: Four candidates withdrew from the 1995 AGM. At least one of them mentioned a lack of knowledge about NCF and/or the complex and time consuming process of on-line campaigning. * Options discussed: a. Include a menu item in the AGM area that points to the re-designed "About NCF" area (ie create pointers to where the info on what NCF does and how it does it is kept) b. Have a meeting for all candidates prior to the confirmations. This would be a briefing meeting and they would receive Board manuals. Time and place should be posted when the menus open. c. Candidates names should be posted as they are confirmed and individual campaigning should begin at that point. * Recommendation: Implement items a, b and c for 1996. 4. Time line and motions from the floor * Information: a) The activities and preparation for the 1995 AGM were rushed and stressful for the volunteers immediately involved. b) Some members are not happy with the decision for no motions from the floor and believe the process can be refined to achieve a middle ground. c) By-law changes passed at this AGM affect motions from the floor. * Options discussed: a. Announce the AGM and the need for candidates in December, prior to the Board meeting. In addition, clarify the type of motions members can bring forward, the process for doing so, and the expectations members should have under the by-laws for a board response. b. At the December Board meeting it must be decided how we handle member questions and motions. If any motions have already been received we must look at them for viability. c. In the second week of January the membership should be reminded again and a discussion group created for members to bring motions to the Board. Someone must be assigned to monitor this group and bring all key issues to the Board for consideration and response. In addition, that person should assist members in drafting motions. d. The AGM should be on the January Board agenda, AGM task descriptions completed and volunteer positions should be filled. Questions or motions from the floor should have been compiled for consideration for AGM inclusion by the Board. As a general practise, the Board should actively negotiate draft wording of motions that positively advance understood NCF priorities, but they should not stop a member motion from going forward. * Recommendations: a)The AGM should be on the Board agenda for December, January and February. b)In light of the guide and time lines the Board should revisit how to handle the 1996 AGM motions from the floor. 5.AGM Task Descriptions * Information: We're learning that staging a good AGM is a complex task. One volunteer ended up doing a great deal of work in bridging gaps between responsibilities. It is important to clarify roles and tasks and to distribute the work load. Last minute confusion resulted due to lack of a declared chair of the AGM process. * Options discussed: Break the tasks into clear roles and recruit people for each by January at the latest. * Recommendations: A lengthy discussion of what actually occurs showed that we need 7 sets of tasks to cover everything!! 1. Menu maintainer: Turns on menus and adapts as needed. Installs candidates documents. Installs Annual reports. 2. Elections Return Officer: Ensures the readiness of voting methods and procedures. Validates nominated candidates as well as their first and second nominator. Opens and closes ballot box and reports vote results. This is a position that requires impartiallity in order to demonstrate and ensure fair and open voting procedures. 3. General AGM FAQ person: Monitors the general discussion and answers questions related to meeting and elections process and history. 4. Board FAQ and motions Preparer: monitors and replies to NCF board and policy questions or issues in the AGM area. Prepares the motions for the AGM. 5. AGM chairperson: All task volunteers and staff report to this person for coordination of AGM activities. Per the By-laws, this is the President of the Board. The President may also declare another person to act in this capacity (for example, when the President is running for office). 6. Vote counting/software person: Programs, sets-up, activates and deactivates the vote counting software. 7. Proxy person: Posts proxy process information and receives and processes all requests. 6. Number and type of newsgroups * Information: The candidates discussion area was so overly busy that it was called a barrier to being informed by some members. In general, the present structure of AGM information and discussion groups was daunting to some members. Also, the existing structure does not make it easy for discussion participants to distinguish candidates from general members, nor does it help candidates to clarify thier positions on issues clearly and easily. The reality of campaigning is, "be on-line every four hours or you'll be swamped!" * Options discussed: 1. Give candidates a suggested template to fill out so there is consistent and concise information available on them 2. Have one general, unmoderated AGM discussion group which is open to all members (and candidates if they wish) and available for discussion of all motions and issues. 3. Have a candidates forum that is structured as a closed list with a candidates alias. only Candidates may post in the actual discussion area. Questions and comments from the floor are addressed to a 'candidates' alias which distributes it to all nominated persons. Following a particular thread would allow members to easily compare candidate responses. * Recommendation: Adopt the above options for the 1996 AGM 6. Software issues and voting security: * Information: The 'change vote' option gives the System Administrator access to the voting and proprietary information of the AGM. As a goal for the future, we should build toward voting software that is totally secret. A software solution, and the time to evolve it, may be more difficult then continuing to have the Board give responsibility to a trusted staff member. -None the less, the voting software, as an example of a practical tool for electronic democracy, should be given more thought and development: the real security issue may be the cancellation of votes or the ability to produce multiple votes (vote forging by hackers). * Options discussed: Keep a list of people who voted. Develop a plan in the event that the election and vote count is contested or compromised. Develop a software solution for creating a "box" for totally secret ballots. * Recommendation: Have a second meeting (Approx June) which deals with software issues such as security, secrecy, user interface, redundancy and back-up votes. 8. Refining the AGM software and documentation into a package for use by others * Information: We are setting a precedent in practical methods for electronic democracy by having our on-line AGMs. Ideally we should make a this into a package for use by other organizations and Free-Nets. * Options: Get a volunteer to draft up all the necessary documentation. Get a volunteer to develop and refine the software. * Recommendations: Revisit the development of the AGM documentation and software refinement in June with the hope that we can prepare this into a package or product for use by other FreeNets by the end of this year. Richard Taylor will volunteer as our software verification person in the event that we package a system for distribution to other FreeNets (he is also going to talk to a colleague in the development and verification of safety critical software). 9. By-law changes for 1995 There was an inconclusive discussion of By-law related issues including: motions from members, change in procedures for changing the By-laws, and NCF policy on bi-lingual menus as it applies to the AGM. =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/voteproc.txt ============================================================================ PROCEDURE FOR ON-LINE BOARD VOTING (Draft) There are a number of elements that are required for a valid electronic vote. These include: 1) A motion, 2) A seconder, 3) A period for discussion and debate, 4) A call for a vote with a defined end of voting deadline, and 5) A clear definition of the person who will tally and publish the result of the vote after the deadline. In view of our policy on public discussion of Board business, unless the topic of a proposed vote is of a confidential nature ("sensitive legal, financial or personal information"), all of the above steps must be conducted publicly in the Board Moderated newsgroup. The "board" Email alias may be used for confidential cases. 1) The Motion: The posting or mail message introducing the motion may include background information and other detail as the orginator sees fit, and it must include a clearly identified motion. It is suggested that a paragraph heading "MOTION" be used and that the paragraph start with the words "I move that..." followed by the precise words of the motion. The mover should also indicate the time to be allowed for discussion. This is open to judgement; something that has had prior discussion, or is a motherhood issue may need little of no discussion, while something very new or controversial may need much discussion. Be warned that the remedy for too little discussion time is a no vote. 2) The Seconder: The response of the seconder may include any supporting arguments that may be desired, and it must include a clearly identified seconding of the motion. It is suggested that a paragraph heading "SECONDING OF MOTION" be used, and that the paragraph start with the words "I second the motion of [name of mover] that..." followed by the original wording of the motion. 3) The discussion period: During the discussion period, any Board member can respond to the motion, or to the responses of other Board members. To keep the debate on track, please try to restrict the content of responses to things that directly pertain to the motion. During the course of the debate, it may be appropriate to amend the orginal motion. The mover and seconder may do so as in the sections on motion and seconder above. In the case of an amendment, it may be appropriate to extend the discussion period. 4) Call for a Vote: At the end of the discussion period a call for a vote must be placed. The mover will normally place the call for a vote, and conduct the vote, or the mover may request that the Chairman do both. In the call for a vote, the name of the mover and seconder must appear along with the final wording of the motion. The call must also contain a clearly stated voting deadline. Normally at least one week should be allowed. 5) Conducting the Vote: At the end of the voting period, the person conducting the vote must tally the vote and report the result. The report must contain the names of the mover and seconder, the wording of the motion, and the result of the vote. In the case of public votes, the report should appear in the Board Moderated newsgroup, and for permanent record, also in the Board Motions passed electronically newsgroup. In the case of confidential matters, the report will be delivered via the "board" mail alias. 6) The Electronic Quorum: The by-laws do not specify any quorum for an electronic vote, so the normal quorum of 5 for a vote at a meeting should apply. Applying that to an electronic forum means that for a motion to succeed, by the vote deadline there should be at least 5 votes cast of which a majority must be in favour of the motion. It should be noted that for an electronic vote, just as for a vote in a live meeting, it is quite desirable that the outcome of the vote be determined by a majority of eight or more. In that way there is no doubt that the result is the wish of a real majority of the Board rather than the wish of some sub-set voting hastily in a special meeting or electronic vote. On the other hand, keeping the vote open indefinitely until a majority of eight is reached in an electronic vote is not right either. If a decision is to be reached, it needs to be reached in some defined, and reasonable time. For other than emergency issues requiring an immediate response, it is suggested that the deadline be set in the one to two week range. 7) Point Form Summary of Process a) The Motion - Heading "Motion" - "I move that...[motion] - State time allowed for discussion b) The Seconder - Heading "Seconding of Motion" - "I second the motion of [name of mover] that... - Include original words of motion c) The Discussion Period - Any Board member may respond - Keep discussion relevant to motion - Amendment possible by mover and seconder d) Call for a Vote - At end of discussion period, mover or Chairman will place the call - Call contains name of mover and seconder, the words of the motion, and the deadline for voting e) Conducting the Vote - Person calling the vote will, at the end of the voting period, issue a report including names of mover and seconder, the words of motion, and the result of the vote. - Report in Board Moderated and Board Motions newsgroups, or to "board" mail alias if confidential f) The Electronic Quorum - Must be a minimum of 5 votes cast prior to the deadline. =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/irc.txt ============================================================================ IRC and the Time Limits Below is a sequence of messages copied from the Board-Moderated newsgroup. This gives *some* of the background for the discussion. Another relevant point was made by Ian! - that the existing limits on IRC were set over a year ago, roughly based on the system usage at that time. There are other relevant threads in the Board-Unmoderated and AGM newsgroups (and probably elsewhere). It is time that the Board re-examined its policy regarding IRC. Do we want to provide IRC service to NCF members? If so, what limitations on this service are necessary or desirable, over and above the existing overall limitations on access to the system? Richard Taylor, aa333 Article #517 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Subject: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Date: Thu Mar 23 18:37:00 1995 Just two notes concerning the IRC in light of the Time Limit, and the need for such a limit. With the peak period ending at 1:30am and the IRC option being available at midnight, a problem now exists for IRC users who use FreeNet during the day. If I was to start IRCing at midnight the time I would use out of my 120 minutes would be depleted by 75%, allowing me only 30 minutes to perform all other FreeNet functions and activities for the next day As a frequent user of IRC I have noticed that at midnight the IRC is "buzzing" with chatters. At about 2:00 the service load lowers considerably as a number of IRCers have school, jobs, family or a life to attend to the next day. To deny these people either, three quaters of their on-line time, ninety minutes of sleep, or the chance to IRC at all seems quite unfair. Would I be correct in assuming that this issue was not covered in the policy talks concerning the limit? I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning the IRC. 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. 2) Perhaps the NCF could target some fundraising from the lovers of this service and cover the costs that way. How about NCF/IRC accounts. You want to IRC, then pay up. The office could sell "za" to "zz" accounts that allow access to IRC only. A simple line or two addition to the program at the log-in sequence would restict access to all areas but th IRC. These accounts would have a "heavily requested" donation of $25.00 per year. If 5% of NCF users want IRC access that would be 2,000 X 25 = $50,000 a year. I do not think this would violate the NCF charter under the no-user fee provision, as IRC is basically an add-on the the FreeNet structure. I have polled a number of IRCers and all but one think that this is a good idea and would be willing to pay to use IRC. The third and fourth opitions are non-viable, being that all IRC time is not counted towards the 120 minutes allotted each user, which would be unworkable. Or the removal of IRC from FreeNet, which I hope is unthinkable I thank you for you time and consideration in this matter Steve: Who loves to IIRC/IRC WhtKnight: Who is on IIRC Ozone: Who is on IRC -- -- S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls Article #518 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Fri Mar 24 16:10:49 1995 In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: > As a frequent user of IRC I have noticed that at midnight the IRC is >"buzzing" with chatters. At about 2:00 the service load lowers considerably >as a number of IRCers have school, jobs, family or a life to attend to the >next day. This is certainly related to "why the peak hours are until 1:30am". > To deny these people either, three quaters of their on-line time, ninety >minutes of sleep, or the chance to IRC at all seems quite unfair. While I understand the point this user is making here, I think he is implying that IRC time is not like other time. No-one is denying the IRC community of three-quarters of their online time, but should they choose to spend that amount of time on IRC, they can. Should they choose to spend it on mail, they can. If I want to IRC for a half-hour and do other stuff for 1.5 hours, I can. > Would I be correct in assuming that this issue was not covered in the policy >talks concerning the limit? The fact that the IRC hours of operation and the peak hours overlap is not an issue any more than the fact that 'email hours', which happen to be all day, overlap with peak hours. I suppose in the context of this question, I could answer either "yes, it was considered as part of the services NCF offers that would be affected by the time limit", or alternatively, "no, the issue of the time limit was not designed to give any more or less consideration to any service available on NCF". If anything, we IRCers are lucky that the NON-peak hours overlap with the 42% of the day during which we are allowed to use IRC. > I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning >the IRC. > 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than > at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages > to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. > This may be something the Board should look at. In general, I find that the "peak hours" seem too inclusive. We should take note that, although the modems are busy during those times, a lot of the 'bloating' of the peak hours is caused by the same over-use which the time limit should eliminate, i.e. if users can't get on during the day, they are forced to redial until they can, or try later, which expands the busy hours. The initial difficulty in connecting should be lessened with the time limit's effects, and so the "peak hours" should shrink accordingly. This is something to look at after we have real data to look at (after the limit is implemented) Another IRC issue relating to this is that perhaps with the time limits in place, IRC hours could be unrestricted. The logic behind this is that if someone can only use 2 hours per day, then they will not tie up a modem all day chatting. The cause for the restricted hours has been removed, perhaps the effect should follow. (perhaps I should say, "IF the cause has been removed...") I think this would even out the load of the IRC users across the day, somewhat..., and also make the night time load less for nightly processing, such as cleaning the disks and news runs. > 2) Perhaps the NCF could target some fundraising from the lovers of this > service and cover the costs that way. > How about NCF/IRC accounts. > You want to IRC, then pay up. I do not support paying for any service or access on NCF. One way I would support it is if some 3rd party amassed $10,000.00 and then offered it as a donation to NCF to offset the cost of expanded IRC service. That would be a donation, not a user fee. Chris -- Chris Hawley, Director | ,---, , ----------------------------| , , . The National Capital FreeNet| , , '', ,'', , ,''` Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA | , , , , , `-, ah654@freenet.carleton.ca | ,,,,', , , , `,,' Article #519 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ao594@freenet.carleton.ca (Yvonne Dionne) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: ao594@freenet.carleton.ca (Yvonne Dionne) Date: Fri Mar 24 16:11:13 1995 In a previous posting, Steven Robert Morrison (bd577@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > Just two notes concerning the IRC in light of the Time Limit, and the > need for such a limit. > > With the peak period ending at 1:30am and the IRC option being available > at midnight, a problem now exists for IRC users who use FreeNet during the > day. > If I was to start IRCing at midnight the time I would use out of my 120 > minutes would be depleted by 75%, allowing me only 30 minutes to perform > all other FreeNet functions and activities for the next day > > As a frequent user of IRC I have noticed that at midnight the IRC is > "buzzing" with chatters. At about 2:00 the service load lowers considerably > as a number of IRCers have school, jobs, family or a life to attend to the > next day. > To deny these people either, three quaters of their on-line time, ninety > minutes of sleep, or the chance to IRC at all seems quite unfair. > > Would I be correct in assuming that this issue was not covered in the policy > talks concerning the limit? > > I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning > the IRC. > > 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than > at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages > to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. I support your proposal, Steven, if it does not significantly affect the fact that about 21 modems were freed up by the two-hour limit. Seems to me this is a reasonable request which will allow IRC's users to get their rest. Can someone provide a quick analysis of how this would affect loads? Or better, perhaps Steven could approach the hardward/software committee and work with them to do the analysis. > 2) Perhaps the NCF could target some fundraising from the lovers of this > service and cover the costs that way. > > How about NCF/IRC accounts. > You want to IRC, then pay up. > The office could sell "za" to "zz" accounts that allow access to > IRC only. > A simple line or two addition to the program at the log-in sequence > would restict access to all areas but th IRC. > > These accounts would have a "heavily requested" donation of $25.00 per > year. > If 5% of NCF users want IRC access that would be 2,000 X 25 = $50,000 > a year. > I do not think this would violate the NCF charter under the no-user fee > provision, as IRC is basically an add-on the the FreeNet structure. > I have polled a number of IRCers and all but one think that this is a > good idea and would be willing to pay to use IRC. I am not convinced that NCF should get into charging for specific uses yet. I *might* be interested in hearing more about "earmarking" portions of donations towards particular services, like United Way allows patrons to donate for (or away from) particular organizations. > The third and fourth opitions are non-viable, being that all IRC time is > not counted towards the 120 minutes allotted each user, which would be > unworkable. Or the removal of IRC from FreeNet, which I hope is > unthinkable I think IRC is a very interesting, unique application of technology within the FreeNet community. Some folks take to it like ducks to water, or me to the telephone, and they will even stay up past midnight to IRC. We cannot afford to ignore popular usage of this new technology - Western Union thought the new "telephone" thing was completely useless and that it would never be of any value. If Bell thought the telephone would be used locally as it is today, (why would one telephone the next office if you could go there and talk in person, the phone is for long distances. etc.), there is no way local calls would be free, and seen as an inalienable "right" to some today. There is some meaning and value to IRC. I'll be darned if I can put my finger on it right now, but I believe it should be protected for a while to see what comes up. Yvonne -- Yvonne Dionne Ottawa, Ontario NCF Board Member ao594@freenet.carleton.ca CANADA! GIVE SOMETHING BACK Article #520 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated,ncf.board-discussion-unmoderated From: aa724@freenet.carleton.ca (Jessica Cohen) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: aa724@freenet.carleton.ca (Jessica Cohen) Date: Sat Mar 25 14:56:49 1995 In a previous posting, Steven Robert Morrison (bd577@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning > the IRC. > > 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than > at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages > to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. > This does sound reasonable to me, maybe if some modelling could be done to see what the modems savings would be if the non-peak hours started at midnight. Another option might be to "start" the day at 7:30 AM (when the peak hours begin) rather than at midnight. -- Jessica B. Cohen NCF Board of Directors insert witty quote in line above, wrap around to line below. Article #522 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Date: Sat Mar 25 20:29:33 1995 In a previous posting, Jessica Cohen (aa724@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > In a previous posting, Steven Robert Morrison (bd577@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > >> I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning >> the IRC. >> >> 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than >> at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages >> to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. >> > > This does sound reasonable to me, maybe if some modelling could be done > to see what the modems savings would be if the non-peak hours started > at midnight. > > Another option might be to "start" the day at 7:30 AM (when the peak > hours begin) rather than at midnight. This idea makes quite alot of sense Jessica, however the problem still unless the peak hours end at midnight. The problematic 90 minute period between midnight and 1:30, would still only allow a user to access non-IRC freenet for thirty minutes before IRCing rather than after. -- S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls Article #523 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Mon Mar 27 13:25:21 1995 In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: > This idea makes quite alot of sense Jessica, however the problem still > unless the peak hours end at midnight. > The problematic 90 minute period between midnight and 1:30, would still only > allow a user to access non-IRC freenet for thirty minutes before IRCing >rather than after. I still fail to see the point. We IRC users must live with the time limits just like everyone else. With that in mind, there is no 'fair' (to the rest of FreeNet) reason to change the definition of "peak" hours just to suit the IRC folks. In general, I feel that the 'peak' hours may be too restrictive. IRC, however, should not be the reason we decide to change the definition of 'peak hours'. Chris Hawley IRC administrator -- Chris Hawley, Director | ,---, , ----------------------------| , , . The National Capital FreeNet| , , '', ,'', , ,''` Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA | , , , , , `-, ah654@freenet.carleton.ca | ,,,,', , , , `,,' Article #524 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Date: Wed Mar 29 10:48:22 1995 In a previous posting, Chris Hawley (ah654@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: > > We IRC users must live with the time limits just like everyone else. > With that in mind, there is no 'fair' (to the rest of FreeNet) reason > to change the definition of "peak" hours just to suit the IRC folks. > > In general, I feel that the 'peak' hours may be too restrictive. IRC, > however, should not be the reason we decide to change the definition > of 'peak hours'. I agree but without taking all things into consideration any decision is flawed. I started this point of topic to address the concerns of users, who would lose the enjoyment of IRCing with the time limit extending to 1:30am. The present IRC extention to 11:00, I think is a two edged sword, on one hand it allows easier acess to IRC, the down side is that people may "burn" off there 120 minutes before lunch. Not all users think ahead, this is a good network, and I am looking out for the interests of others as well as myself because many users are not aware of policy discussion areas, and many time saving functions on FreeNet (tollbox windows for example) S.R.M. -- S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls Article #525 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Wed Mar 29 22:26:42 1995 In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: >In a previous posting, Chris Hawley (ah654@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: >> In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: >> >> We IRC users must live with the time limits just like everyone else. >> With that in mind, there is no 'fair' (to the rest of FreeNet) reason >> to change the definition of "peak" hours just to suit the IRC folks. >> >> In general, I feel that the 'peak' hours may be too restrictive. IRC, >> however, should not be the reason we decide to change the definition >> of 'peak hours'. > I agree but without taking all things into consideration any decision > is flawed. > I started this point of topic to address the concerns of users, who would > lose the enjoyment of IRCing with the time limit extending to 1:30am. > Yes, but by the same logic, I lose the enjoyment of USENET because the time limit extends through my lunch hour. > The present IRC extention to 11:00, I think is a two edged sword, on one >hand it allows easier acess to IRC, the down side is that people may "burn" >off there 120 minutes before lunch. There has been no change in the IRC hours. See the IRC SIG, the guy who was Responsible for that error has confessed. :) In a nutshell, the IRC hours limitation was broken. However, the safety net built right into the server caught us, so that people would see an uglier message, but not be able to IRC outside of 'approved' hours. Since the SERVER hours contain the CLIENT hours, the overlap, which is there to let people who got in the door at 9:59am finish their hour if they prefer, was what people were seeing when they connected after 10am. This has been repaired and now all is as it was before. > Not all users think ahead, this is a good network, and I am looking out for >the interests of others as well as myself because many users are not aware of >policy discussion areas, and many time saving functions on FreeNet (tollbox >windows for example) Good man. It's good to have input as to what the users' viewpoint is, when we don't get it right from our own inquiries and use. Chris > S.R.M. >-- > S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, > I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away > The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed > Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls -- Chris Hawley, Volunteer, Director, | The National Capital FreeNet Linux SIG operator, IRC administrator, * Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA NCF Oracle database administrator | ah654@freenet.carleton.ca Article #526 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: IRC times Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Wed Mar 29 22:27:31 1995 I propose as an agenda item for the next Board meeting that we formalize the IRC times and any reasons we want to attach to those times. More to follow before the meeting. Chris -- Chris Hawley, Volunteer, Director, | The National Capital FreeNet Linux SIG operator, IRC administrator, * Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA NCF Oracle database administrator | ah654@freenet.carleton.ca Article #527 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ak717@freenet.carleton.ca (Miranda Gray) Subject: Re: IRC times Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: ak717@freenet.carleton.ca (Miranda Gray) Date: Thu Mar 30 20:54:43 1995 In a previous posting, Chris Hawley (ah654@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > I propose as an agenda item for the next Board meeting that we > formalize the IRC times and any reasons we want to attach to those > times. More to follow before the meeting. I think it would a wise idea to review all policies at least annually. I am not aware of any such review of current policies in the year I have been following the board's discussions. Miranda -- Miranda National Capital FreeNet -- Ottawa, Canada Article #528 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: IRC times Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Thu Mar 30 20:56:36 1995 It has been brought to my attention that the IRC times *have* been set in a Board motion in the past. If this is the case, then I withdraw my proposal. I wish only to formalize what is there, and to address recent concerns that the times may be based on outdated information and should be revisited. Can someone definitively answer this for me please? (Has there been a motion carried by the Board that formalized the IRC hours of operation?) Thanks, Chris In ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) writes: >I propose as an agenda item for the next Board meeting that we >formalize the IRC times and any reasons we want to attach to those >times. More to follow before the meeting. >Chris -- Chris Hawley, Volunteer, Director, | The National Capital FreeNet Linux SIG operator, IRC administrator, * Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA NCF Oracle database administrator | ah654@freenet.carleton.ca =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/opsapr.txt ============================================================================ Operations Report 12 April 1995 By Lisa Donnelly, Executive Director 1. Implementation of the two hour time limit In the event that there are no urgent system problems, the two hour time limit will be in test mode as of Thursday, 13 April 1995. If the testing period goes smoothly the application will be activated on Thursday, 20 April 1995. An announcement will be posted a day before activation of the time limit occurs. 2. Individual exceptions for the time limits - the Time Limit Task Force In order to fairly and professionally administer granting occasional exceptions to the daily time limit we are creating a Time Limit task force. The details are as follows: a) A task force consisting of the two volunteer coordinators, Brian Monkman and Natalie Munro, and two other volunteers we are in the process of recruiting, will look at requests for exceptions and make recommendations to the Executive Director. b) Criteria for eligibility will be posted in a specific menu item in the Volunteer Menus (go helpers). c) An agreement must be signed and returned to NCF by any members receiving extensions to the daily time limit. 4. Installation of an updated version of main menu item 1. "About NCF" Item 1 on the main menu, "About the National Capital FreeNet" has been revamped and substantially improved. Volunteer Matthew Darwin, with help from Miranda Gray, did a great deal of work redesigning the area. Our goal was to have an up-to-date area that reflected much of the information included in the NCF Board manual. I have looked at it in test mode and am excited for the actual installation. It will provide one-stop shopping for any member who wants to know about our on-line community. 5. Creation of an Operational Policy area As NCF continues to grow and mature, there is an increasing need to develop Operational Policies. These should be kept on line for the membership to review. A new menu item, "Operational Policies" will be added below the existing Board Policies item. In addition, it will be linked to the newly developed "NCF Operations" menus which have been built into the revamped "About NCF" area. 7. Directors' Liability Policy on the way Our Directors' Liability Insurance is secured for 7 April 1995 through 7 April 1996. As soon as I receive the official policy from our agent it will be photocopied and distributed for inclusion in the Board manuals. 8. Looking into Equipment Insurance In addition to our Directors' Liability we are looking into formal equipment insurance for the National Capital FreeNet. Our agent has yet to find a suitable policy but is continuing with her research. 9. NCF administrative office running smoothly The administrative office continues to run smoothly. As in the last three months, there is little if any backlog in registrations. Our two coop students will remain with us through June. Mike Anderson, our Administrative Coordinator, is looking into regionally sponsored job placement programs for the summer. In the last two months there have been several posted complaints from members who have not had their telephone messages returned by the volunteer help line. These types of complaints have occurred throughout our existence and will be difficult to eradicate until we have a larger office which permits additional phone lines. The office volunteer attendance and commitment remains strong but we are operating under space and equipment constraints that make it difficult to promptly handle the large quantity of telephone calls received each day. 10. Look for a Media Strategy draft in May I have met with Mike Anderson about developing a formal media strategy for presentation to the Board. This will include timelines and public relations plans for individual events, operational policy for handling media inquiries, weekly and monthly external communications plans and additional media related guidelines. We will be refining the draft at the end of this month and plan to have it ready for the May Board meeting. 11. Chris Hawley to be Second System Administrator for Ian! Allen Being the System Administrator for a community network the size of National Capital FreeNet is no simple matter. Ian! Allen, our System Administrator Extrordinaire, is always on call around the clock. To our good fortune, newly elected Board member Chris Hawley, has the skills and has agreed to act as Second Administrator. This means that Ian! can actually take a week-end away from the system sometimes! Chris will receive some additional training the next couple of weeks but is already acting in this capacity and available to take over occasionally upon advance request. 12. We apply for our fifth ONIP installment on 30 April 1995 Our second to the last ONIP installment is for $15,000. It is the total amount we will receive from them this year. Our sixth and last installment, also for $15,000, becomes available on 30 April 1996. 13. Survival Guide being printed "The Official Survival Guide of the National Capital FreeNet" finally made it to the printers! It was received on Monday, 10 April 1995 and is slated for completion by Monday, 24 April 1995. Look for it at your next NCF meeting. Big thanks are in order for Michael Zahab and Mathew Darwin for getting this ready to go. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa K. Donnelly, am412@freenet.carleton.ca Executive Director, National Capital FreeNet/Libertel de la Capitale national ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================================== begin: freenet/board/agenda/financeapr.txt ============================================================================ National Capital FreeNet Financial Statements for March 1995 Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Surplus Period ended 31 March 1995 Actuals Budget YTD 1995 YTD 1995 Revenue Donations $53,262 $40,001 Government grants $2,675 $0 Conference $0 $0 Fundraising $3,546 $12,650 Deferred contributions $5,535 $2,756 Promotional items $823 $1,000 Public Access cost recoveries $530 $0 ------- ------- Total revenue $66,371 $56,407 ------- ------- Expenses Telecommunications $19,642 $17,491 System administration $15,588 $12,603 Conference $0 $0 Office staff and supplies $7,836 $10,280 Depreciation $12,645 $10,228 Administration and professional fees $15,585 $17,545 Fundraising $11,179 $14,146 Cost of grants $2,675 $0 Promotional items $107 $500 Public events $331 $250 Public Access $268 $100 ------- ------- Total expenses $85,856 $83,143 ------- ------- Excess of revenue over expenses ($19,486) ($26,736) --------- --------- --------- --------- Notes: 1) Deferred contributions are higher than budget as the budget did not the Oracle Software contribution ($37,000) 2) Telecommunications for Mar95 includes a non-recurring credit of $2,100 due to changes in telecomm lines 3) Fundraising costs for Mar95 includes a non-recurring credit of $1,500 due to contract changes from Jan95 National Capital FreeNet Balance Sheet As of 31 March 1995 Actuals Budget Mar-95 Mar-95 Assets Current assets Cash $33,024 $17,653 Other current assets $5,350 $0 ------- ------- $38,374 $17,653 Capital equipment Computer equipment $75,421 $78,064 Systems software $36,909 $0 Telecommunications equipment $83,753 $80,788 Business equipment $0 $4,800 ------- ------- $196,083 $163,652 Less accumulated depreciation $57,179 $50,685 ------- ------- $138,904 $112,967 -------- -------- Total Assets $177,278 $130,620 -------- -------- -------- -------- Liabilities and Surplus Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $12,679 $14,719 Deferred contributions $62,136 $24,108 Surplus $102,463 $91,793 -------- -------- Total liabilities and surplus $177,278 $130,620 -------- -------- -------- -------- Notes: 1) ONIP Grant for $25,000 received in March - this amount was recognized in 1994 as a receivable 2) Other Current Assets includes amounts owed by Industry Canada 3) Deferred Contributions is greater that budget due to the software contribution by Oracle Canada in late 1994 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa K. Donnelly, am412@freenet.carleton.ca Executive Director, National Capital FreeNet/Libertel de la Capitale national ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================================== EOF