Re: [ql-users] The Way Forward
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Duncan Neithercut wrote: Do you agree with above if so let the committee members on the list know. These are a clear and agreeable summary of goals. The real question is whether the goals are desirable or achievable. I think most of the goals are internal to Quanta and not my concern as a non-member, but seem sensible. The hardware goal is more troublesome. I believe that requires a separate thread and a broad, practical discussion about what is best for SMSQ/E since the hardware is just something to run SMSQ/E... Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] The Way Forward
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Duncan Neithercut wrote: 3. If the site contains the magazine in downloadable format offer an opt-out from the postal paper copy with email notification of new issues - may save some money from those of us with internet access Sell magazine from site to non members (get their credit card numbers). Only once it becomes interesting again of course see below. If Quanta magazine is available on the Internet the number of paper copies will fall, if they are printed this will make it uneconomical to continue to print it. If there is no paper magazine I will resign and subscribe to QL Today instead. Improving the Quanta magazine 1 Distribute selected library programs to members with the newsletter. If someone complains that they need it on microdrive cartridges send them some floppy disks and interface from donated equipment. Explain how to use the software in the newsletter. Same goes for selected PD sofware from the usual sources. Persuade if possible, pay if need be (eg £xx per 1000 words) the authors to write the how to articles. Individuals to take responsibility for making it happen Quanta Librarian Magazine Editor Treasurer. ACCUS already pay group members money for writing pieces in Quanta. -- Tarquin Mills ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
RE: [ql-users] The Way Forward
I think they are your concern not directly perhaps but indirectly as a means of keeping a critical mass of people interested. There will be no separate discussion of hardware unless there are enough users. Thank you for your support of the lists goals in general. They are not by any means exclusive or complete. so if you have a specific hardware project in mind chuck it in. Duncan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave P Sent: 24 November 2004 21:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] The Way Forward On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Duncan Neithercut wrote: Do you agree with above if so let the committee members on the list know. These are a clear and agreeable summary of goals. The real question is whether the goals are desirable or achievable. I think most of the goals are internal to Quanta and not my concern as a non-member, but seem sensible. The hardware goal is more troublesome. I believe that requires a separate thread and a broad, practical discussion about what is best for SMSQ/E since the hardware is just something to run SMSQ/E... Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] The Way Forward
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 at 21:54:07, Tarquin Mills wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Duncan Neithercut wrote: 3. If the site contains the magazine in downloadable format offer an opt-out from the postal paper copy with email notification of new issues - may save some money from those of us with internet access Sell magazine from site to non members (get their credit card numbers). Only once it becomes interesting again of course see below. If Quanta magazine is available on the Internet the number of paper copies will fall, if they are printed this will make it uneconomical to continue to print it. If there is no paper magazine I will resign and subscribe to QL Today instead. I am -sure- it will continue to be printed. There will always be people who want a printed magazine. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Fwd: [ql-users] The Way Forward
On Nov 24, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Tarquin Mills wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Duncan Neithercut wrote: 3. If the site contains the magazine in downloadable format offer an opt-out from the postal paper copy with email notification of new issues - may save some money from those of us with internet access Sell magazine from site to non members (get their credit card numbers). Only once it becomes interesting again of course see below. If Quanta magazine is available on the Internet the number of paper copies will fall, if they are printed this will make it uneconomical to continue to print it. If there is no paper magazine I will resign and subscribe to QL Today instead. There is also the question of critical mass, period. If there aren't enough people belonging to Quanta, then it won't make sense whether it is paper or internet based. If there is enough new and/or unique content, I don't mind having a paper copy around. On the other hand with the extra cost of an overseas subscription and the small value of the current mag (it takes me around 10-15 minutes on average to scan through it and get anything that I can use or am not aware of - sorry to say), an internet copy would probably do me better than the paper copy. Hopefully this will change. By the way, before someone says why don't you write for Quanta, my hands are over-full with QDT development and the occasional article for QL Today. And if you don't think that you can write, if you subscribe to QL Today you will see a series of articles on graphics. I believe this particular series started when I and a few others pushed a particular gentleman to try to write something. He didn't think that he had anything to write about. And now 30 to 40 articles later... :) Whether it be for QL Today or Quanta, I sure wish that more people would try their hand. I suspect that there is a bunch more talent just sitting around waiting for encouragement! Cheers, jim ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] The way forward?
- Original Message - From: Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] The way forward? On 22 Nov 2004 at 15:59, Dave P wrote: Personally, I think Quanta is irrelevant. (...) and , later on: For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there to do something TRULY revolutionary. (...)The only organization with the funds is a private organization that is only allowed to benefit its members - Quanta. So Quanta isn't irrelevant? Didn't they extend a loan to DD systems to get the Q60 built (further?). (...) Yes they did, and a very straight forward and successful arrangement it was and fully repaid within 12 months. This is the sort of thing that Quanta would be willing to consider for other projects but no one has come forward with a project. John Gilpin.(Treasurer) I don't blame the Quanta committee for not doing anything. (...) In my company, the solution for this is to decide on three or four clear courses of action. Allocate each member with ten points, and allow them to allocate the points in any proportion to the proposed paths. At the end of this exercise you have a clear understanding of which projects have the most and least support. Isn't the fact that Quanta isn't doing this exactly what they are blamed for? (...later email...) The real problem for Nasta is such a simple one. He has a complete design ready to go - he just needs the time and resources to follow it through. Some of us have sourced and are holding components for his projects but without a couple of months away from yucky jobs, and the resources to get everything made to a suitable standard, it won't happen. I disagree in parts. One of Nasta's problems is that he seems to be a hardware man only (sorry to discuss you as if you weren't there, Nasta). Let me hasten to add that I have met him only once briefly at QL 2004 and found him extremeny likable. Nasta gave a very interesting (and witty) talk about two projects, one of which could be seen as being not that far from completion, and he seems to be driving it forward technically very nicely. What, IMHO, Nasta doesn't seem to realise is that it is also up to him to drive the project forward financially - no one else is going to do that for him. Why doesn't he say (for example here on this list) I need so much money and if I have that, I'll build (whatever - a prototype, a working version ..) within so many months. There have alreay been people on this list who have stated that they would support new projects financially... For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there to do something TRULY revolutionary. I have these quaint ideas of miniATX motherboards using standard everything and a pair of 68060s - all this is possible if it's funded. To what tune? Maybe [Quanta] misinterpret the rules and think that benefit means do business with - they can do business with any QLer... But they do have to make sure that the projects they finance are financially sound and of benefit to many of their members (and NOT the QL community in general. If we want Quanta to be of benefit to the QL community in general, we must all become members). What if many of the Quanta members are still sticking to their original QLs Now you're talking guys. How many membership forms do you want? New members (or old ones returning) are always welcome to Quanta!! John Gilpin. (Membership Secretary) and don't plan to upgrade? Shoudl Quanta really finance something they don't want? This reminds me of a problem we had in QLCF, the (now defunct) french QL users club. We, too, had a bit of money on the side. During an AGM it was proposed that we use some of this money to fund development of SMSQ/E for the QXL. IIRC this wasn't even voted on because the consenus of those who were present was that this was something worthwhile to put our money in. So a (modest) amount was given to TT towards that development - in return, we were allowed to distribute that version aongst our members - not all of whom (far from it) even had a QXL. Some bought one because of it, though. But we already had done something like that earlier - for example, we had bought a licence for QPAC II for all of our mermbers (and I think QD, too). QLCF was responsible for translating duplicating the manuals etc, copying the disks and distributing them, a work which was undertaken for free by a member. At the time, I felt that this was a good way to act for us, because 1 - Our members got good software 2 - Traders and authors got money 3 - Secretly I hoped this would be a beneficial spiral, since some members would buy new hardware to run the new software on, tus financing the QL world even further. The problem is that you can't really do that with hardware, which, for each item sold has a definite cost so that even
Re: [ql-users] The way forward?
Surely all this : business plans and legal agreements...just illustrates how conservative the committee are. The Q60 venture ended up repaying the Quanta loan, but why should that be a model for the future? Does it matter if the zero financial return is received by Quanta for an investment if the result is a product of value to the community and which extends the life of the QL scene. Or perhaps they'd prefer to have all that money in the bank when the last user quits the scene. I'd happily rejoin Quanta if I believed that they would do something useful with my subscription, but quite honestly I cannot work out what they think their purpose is. How many people rely on their newsletter for info? How many people rely on their software library? How many people attend workshops receiving a Quanta subsidy? In my opinion, Quanta should be pro-actively looking for projects to promote. These should not need to be viable in terms of recovering costs or making a profit (if that were possible there should be other ways of raising the funding anyway). Instead, they should plan to allow their current bankable assets to decline to zero over a period of say 3 years supporting said projects. They would then be down to their trading surplus over that period. They should then review and repeat, until it is time to turn off the lights, but hopefully these very actions will delay that time. Otherwise Quanta will remain largely irrelevant, and it will be up to the talented members of this list to keep things going for as long as possible. Jeremy Roy wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wolfgang Lenerz SNIP[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Nasta gave a very interesting (and witty) talk about two projects, one of which could be seen as being not that far from completion, and he seems to be driving it forward technically very nicely. What, IMHO, Nasta doesn't seem to realise is that it is also up to him to drive the project forward financially - no one else is going to do that for him. Well that is not entirely true. As far as I know, from talking with John Gilpin and a couple of others, Quanta were willing to put a similar deal to the DD one forward for Nasta. What they needed was a plan i.e. what are the costs, what does he have already, how many would be built, how many does he expect to sell, how will they be sold etc. In short a business plan. I offered to put that into good English and put it forward for him. I also said I would either do the selling or leave that to Quanta if that was what was wanted. The trouble is he has not submitted the skeleton plan for me to work on. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] The way forward?
On 22 Nov 2004 at 15:59, Dave P wrote: Personally, I think Quanta is irrelevant. (...) and , later on: For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there to do something TRULY revolutionary. (...)The only organization with the funds is a private organization that is only allowed to benefit its members - Quanta. So Quanta isn't irrelevant? Didn't they extend a loan to DD systems to get the Q60 built (further?). (...) I don't blame the Quanta committee for not doing anything. (...) In my company, the solution for this is to decide on three or four clear courses of action. Allocate each member with ten points, and allow them to allocate the points in any proportion to the proposed paths. At the end of this exercise you have a clear understanding of which projects have the most and least support. Isn't the fact that Quanta isn't doing this exactly what they are blamed for? (...later email...) The real problem for Nasta is such a simple one. He has a complete design ready to go - he just needs the time and resources to follow it through. Some of us have sourced and are holding components for his projects but without a couple of months away from yucky jobs, and the resources to get everything made to a suitable standard, it won't happen. I disagree in parts. One of Nasta's problems is that he seems to be a hardware man only (sorry to discuss you as if you weren't there, Nasta). Let me hasten to add that I have met him only once briefly at QL 2004 and found him extremeny likable. Nasta gave a very interesting (and witty) talk about two projects, one of which could be seen as being not that far from completion, and he seems to be driving it forward technically very nicely. What, IMHO, Nasta doesn't seem to realise is that it is also up to him to drive the project forward financially - no one else is going to do that for him. Why doesn't he say (for example here on this list) I need so much money and if I have that, I'll build (whatever - a prototype, a working version ..) within so many months. There have alreay been people on this list who have stated that they would support new projects financially... For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there to do something TRULY revolutionary. I have these quaint ideas of miniATX motherboards using standard everything and a pair of 68060s - all this is possible if it's funded. To what tune? Maybe [Quanta] misinterpret the rules and think that benefit means do business with - they can do business with any QLer... But they do have to make sure that the projects they finance are financially sound and of benefit to many of their members (and NOT the QL community in general. If we want Quanta to be of benefit to the QL community in general, we must all become members). What if many of the Quanta members are still sticking to their original QLs and don't plan to upgrade? Shoudl Quanta really finance something they don't want? This reminds me of a problem we had in QLCF, the (now defunct) french QL users club. We, too, had a bit of money on the side. During an AGM it was proposed that we use some of this money to fund development of SMSQ/E for the QXL. IIRC this wasn't even voted on because the consenus of those who were present was that this was something worthwhile to put our money in. So a (modest) amount was given to TT towards that development - in return, we were allowed to distribute that version aongst our members - not all of whom (far from it) even had a QXL. Some bought one because of it, though. But we already had done something like that earlier - for example, we had bought a licence for QPAC II for all of our mermbers (and I think QD, too). QLCF was responsible for translating duplicating the manuals etc, copying the disks and distributing them, a work which was undertaken for free by a member. At the time, I felt that this was a good way to act for us, because 1 - Our members got good software 2 - Traders and authors got money 3 - Secretly I hoped this would be a beneficial spiral, since some members would buy new hardware to run the new software on, tus financing the QL world even further. The problem is that you can't really do that with hardware, which, for each item sold has a definite cost so that even if some members work for free as a dedication to the QL scene, each piece of hardware still has a definite cost... Wolfgang -- W. H. Lenerz www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com -- ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
