Article 4648 of ncf.board-discussion-unmoderated: Xref: freenet.carleton.ca ncf.board-discussion-unmoderated:4582 Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-unmoderated Path: freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!aa118 From: aa118@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Patrick) Subject: the "soup kitchen" of the information age (long) Message-ID: Sender: aa118@freenet5.carleton.ca (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: aa118@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Patrick) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 00:16:23 GMT Lines: 183 I have been doing a lot of thinking recently about the decisions that we as a Board of Directors have made recently and the direction NCF seems to be headed. I do not agree with some of these decisions and the apparent direction, and I think part of the reason is a difference in views about the role of the NCF in the community. Although there are no absolutes, there are at least two very different views about what the NCF should be doing and how we should be developing. Let me explain what these two views are and which one is correct for the NCF. The first view is that the NCF should be a modern, technically sophisticated online service that meets the needs of all members of the community. We should be providing services for both the experienced, sophisticated, and well-off segments of the community, and the novice, computer illiterate, and less-well-off segments. Thus, the mandate, services, and activities of the NCF should be broad. The second view is that the NCF should have a limited mandate and target only that segment of the community that is not being served in other ways. That is, the NCF should emphasize services to those who do not have the skills, equipment, or money to get online in any other way. In this view, the NCF should not be trying to provide the most modern, technically advanced services, but should instead be focussed on outreach to those segments of the community that really need the service. In an ideal world the NCF might be able to do both these things, but with limited funds and limited energy we have to limit what we do. I also think that lack of agreement on this fundamental issue may be causing us to loose focus and forget our original goals and ideals. Recent decisions made by the Board and discussions of various issues seem to be supporting to the first view, that the NCF should focus on being a technically modern service for all users. The endorsement of a change to the main software to WWW, the desire for modern off-line mail tools, the possible support for SLIP or PPP access, and even the decision to let members buy custom login IDs, all seem to be based on a concern to be an up-to-date and complete service. At a recent Board meeting one of the Directors stated that we had to do some of these things because the commercial Internet providers were doing it and we would be left behind. I would like to argue that the second view, what I like to call the "soup kitchen" model, is the correct one for the NCF. Worrying about installing the latest net technology on the NCF is a bit like worrying about what wine to serve with dinner when people are starving on the streets. As successful as the NCF is, we are only serving a very small percentage of the community (maybe 4%). There are large segments of the local population who lack the skills, equipment, or funds to get online. Moreover, not being online is becoming more and more of a problem as electronic services and opportunities expand. The NCF should be worrying about giving everyone access to some basic level of service rather than improving the service for members that are already here or already online through other means. When I hear people saying that we have to compete with the services offered by the commercial providers than I am convinced that we are on the wrong track. We are not here to provide the services that they provide, but instead to offer services to people that don't have a hope of signing on to a commercial service, and providing services that are unique and valuable to the community as a whole. We cannot hope to compete with commercial services and I don't think we should be trying. We should be doing something different, and serving a different group of people. What I am suggesting, then, is that the NCF adopt a limited mandate. Our role should be to provide services to members of the community who cannot get online in other ways. We should provide the training, equipment, and connections that people cannot get somewhere else. Once people have the skills, equipment, or funds to get connected in other ways, then our role should stop. People should graduate from the FreeNet and move on, if they are able, to other more advanced services, just as people who no longer have the need stop eating their meals at the soup kitchen. We should encourage people to come back from time-to-time, and this does imply a role for the Web, and we should make sure that we have good community content that will make them come back, but we don't need to keep everyone forever. The FreeNet should be motivated by charitable emotions, not by desires for the best service. We should see our role as philanthropic, not self-serving. We should be outward-looking to determine the needs in the community at large, not inward-looking to improve the services that we already have. This view on the mandate of the NCF applies to both users and information providers. Our role should be to provide a platform for information providers who cannot get their information online in other ways. We should focus on serving those organizations who don't have the skills, equipment, or funds to get online, and let those how do have these things setup somewhere else. I get worried when someone says in alarm that some organization did not install their information on the NCF but instead went to a commercial provider or installed their own WWW site. If they are able to do that we should congratulate them, point to their information, and focus on serving all of those other organizations who cannot do it themselves. What implications does this view have for recent decisions? I believe that upgrading our systems to the WWW should be low priority, and should only be done with the goal of providing a basic service to those in need. The NCF should continue to offer access to the WWW service through the Lynx interface, and we should continue to make our information available through the FreePort/HTPP converter. We should not, however, be placing high priority at this time in support for graphical browsers or graphical information on the NCF. Users that are able to take advantage of these technologies can get services very reasonably from commercial providers. I see the recent decision that will allow people to buy a personal login ID on the system (you can call it a "donation" all you want, but in my mind it is a fee for service) to be questionable if we adopt a basic service model. Our concern should be in giving out IDs to those people who cannot get online, not worrying about having it customized for each individual user. If we adopt this "soup kitchen" role for the NCF, what specific activities should we be doing? The NCF should get back to its roots and do again many of the things that we did at the beginning. Major activities should be in the areas of community outreach, presentations, training, and orientation. We should be holding public sessions again that explain what the FreeNet is, what is available online, and why the community should be interested. Also, we should be targeting those groups who have not found us on their own. We already serve the early adopters and the people who can find their way on the system. We have not yet tried to serve those who need more help. We should have orientation and training sessions for groups that we know are not being served in other ways. We should be targeting women, children, teachers, parents, elected officials, and the media, to mention only a few. We should be advertising in the media to explain what we are doing and what is possible. We should be going on radio and television to explain what is here and why it is valuable. We should make sure that our basic service is accessible. This means continuing to expand our lines and systems if this is necessary. We should also develop programs to get people the equipment they might need to connect. Public terminals are good but they are used rarely. We could have an equipment sales or lending program that would provide basic terminals and modems to people in-need. (Alana Boltwood has recently posted a good article about this kind of project.) We should open a "FreeNet Store Front" where people could drop-in to consult a live help-desk, take classes, access the system through public terminals, etc. This should be in an public, accessible, central location. In short, our activities should be more externally focused. We should be researching our community to learn about the groups that are not online, the barriers to getting connected, and the solutions that we can offer. The big challenge for the soup kitchen model is funding. The funding for real soup services is being cut drastically, so finding money for the equivalent service for the information age is going to be difficult. I do think, however, that our model of funding should be charitable, and that our major sources of funding should be donations and grants. I am probably naive and idealistic, but I believe that a FreeNet based on these principles is a worthy cause that will be supported if we do the right things. If I am wrong and individuals, corporations, and government agencies do not think that the FreeNet is a worthy cause, then I think we have to question the validity of the project in the first place. If we limit our mandate and "graduate" our members to other services, an obvious target for funding is those service providers who will have our old members as new customers. Perhaps we can seek partnerships where we will receive funds when our members sign-on with more advanced services. Another source for funds that might be consistent with this model is advertising or "promotional sponsorships". If the NCF is introducing large numbers of people to online services, it may be a good location for many corporations to advertise. We already do this to some extent with our line sponsorship program and greeting page messages. Perhaps we should think about expanding this activity. Commercial messages that are not intrusive and appropriate for the user population may be a better alternative than not funding the project at all. Comments invited. -- Andrew Patrick (aa118@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) Vice-President, National Capital FreeNet