Response (draft) - Revision history

Matteo: + cat

2007-10-01T03:38:47Z

+ cat

Ifny at 01:24, 21 July 2007

2007-07-21T01:24:18Z

Ifny at 01:11, 21 July 2007

2007-07-21T01:11:00Z

Ifny at 23:47, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T23:47:59Z

Ifny at 23:29, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T23:29:16Z

Ifny at 23:05, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T23:05:34Z

Ifny at 23:03, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T23:03:25Z

Ifny at 23:00, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T23:00:13Z

Ifny at 22:39, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T22:39:14Z

Ifny at 22:27, 20 July 2007

2007-07-20T22:27:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 1 October 2007
Line 163:		Line 163:
	retardants can create brominated dioxins and		retardants can create brominated dioxins and
	furans at certain temperatures.		furans at certain temperatures.
		+
		+	[[category: FG Vancouver]]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 software can prolong the lifetime of older hardware and enables lower-cost refurbished systems, since there is no need to purchase new software licenses.
-. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would wastefully divert a large amount of working, reusable hardware to recycling.  In particular, thin client networks can be created using one powerful server and many less-powerful client computers.  An example is the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP), recently adopted by the Kamloops District 73 School (see article: http://www.sd73.bc.ca/district-operations.php/page/linux-in-education/). Free Geek's own LTSP lab is composed of Pentium-II computers.
+. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would wastefully divert a large amount of working, reusable hardware to recycling.  In particular, thin client networks can be created using one powerful server and many less-powerful client computers.  An example is the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP), recently adopted by the Kamloops District 73 School (see article: http://www.sd73.bc.ca/district-operations.php/page/linux-in-education/). Free Geek's own LTSP lab is composed of Pentium-III 500mhz computers.
 Our membership is generally is agreement that, with the possible exception of overseas shipping, a residual lifespan criteria is wastefully restrictive. It would needlessly prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, and greatly reduce the amount of reusable product, inherent educational benefits and research opportunities.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 21 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Please note: the version below is the final edition and was submitted as our official response.
		+
	Re: RCBC Computer Reuse Organization Standard		Re: RCBC Computer Reuse Organization Standard

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 proposed resolutions, the most serious being as follows:
-. We are uncomfortable with formal requirements to endorse BC's EPR program, and to the mandatory direction of all unusable electronics to recyclers chosen without our consent.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not yet audited. An organisation like ours must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without undue bias. We consider articulated standards more constructive than mandatory recyclers.
+. We are uncomfortable with formal requirements to endorse BC's EPR program, and to the mandatory direction of all unusable electronics to recyclers chosen without our consent.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not audited. An organisation like ours must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without bias. Additionally, we consider articulated standards more constructive than mandatory recyclers.
 . We consider the residual lifespan criteria to be wastefully restrictive. It would needlessly prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, and greatly reduce the amount of reusable product, inherent educational benefits and research opportunities.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 . We agree.
-. We consider transparency essential to regulation, and are pleased to see industry-led pressure on this front. However we are reluctant to submit all re-use data to ESBC as it is an industry group, rather than a government or public body.  We consider it more appropriate to require that every re-use organisation make these details available to the general public, in an easily accessed location such as a website or wiki. For some time, other Free Geeks have taken such measures voluntarily as a matter of course. (See an example at http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/PDX_Recycling_Vendors)
+. We consider transparency essential to regulation, and are pleased to see industry-led pressure on this front. However we are reluctant to submit all re-use data to ESBC as it is an industry group, rather than a government or public body.  We consider it more appropriate to require that every re-use organisation make these details available to the general public, in an easily accessed location such as a website or wiki. For some time, other Free Geeks have taken some such measures voluntarily as a matter of course. (See an example at http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/PDX_Recycling_Vendors)
-. We agree to the spirit of the item.  However, we are concerned that the cost of such insurance may be
+. We agree to the spirit of the item.  However, we are concerned that the cost of such insurance may be prohibitive to smaller organizations and must withhold final comment until we have researched the matter.
 .  We feel this point is considerably vague; the term "product" requires elaboration.  How does it relate to the
@@ Line 41: / Line 40: @@
 the product, to maintain individuals' privacy.
-.  We are uncomfortable with formal requirements to endorse BC's EPR program.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not audited. We desire further details regarding the phrase "co-operating with program stakeholders." All organisations should be encouraged to incessant pursuit of best environmental practices, and to bring public attention to any practice that falls short. In this spirit it is our pleasure to work with others to improve the program.
+.  We are uncomfortable with formal requirements to endorse BC's EPR program.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not audited. We desire further details regarding the phrase "co-operating with program stakeholders." All organisations should be encouraged to incessant pursuit of best environmental practices, and to bring public attention to any practice that falls short. In this spirit it is our pleasure  and duty to work with others to improve the program.
@@ Line 65: / Line 64: @@
 practical issues inherent in computer technology reuse, for the following reasons:
-. Computers are treated as a whole, with no
+. Computers are treated as a whole, with no provision for dismantling machines and reusing or
-provision for dismantling machines and reusing or
+replacing parts.  Some parts can be repurposed for other purposes, like using old printer components
-replacing parts.  Some parts can be repurposed for
+for robotics research, or using systems or parts for cultural/artistic endeavors or as film props.
-other purposes, like using old printer components
+Occasionally, there are direct applications for legacy hardware in the corporate and public sector, such as old floppy disk
-for robotics projects, or using systems or parts for artistic endeavors or as film props.
+readers, or keyboards for expensive industrial manufacturing infrastructure. (See http://freegeekvancouver.org/en/GVRD_legacy_reuse) Older industrial machinery in particular can expand its longevity by replacing worn-out hard-to-find components.
-. There is no provision for free or
+. There is no provision for free or open-source software as an alternative to propriety operating systems.  Open source
-open-source software as an alternative to propriety operating systems.  Open source
+software can prolong the lifetime of older hardware and enables lower-cost refurbished systems, since there is no need to purchase new software licenses.
-. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would wastefully divert a large
+. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would wastefully divert a large amount of working, reusable hardware to recycling.  In particular, thin client networks can be created using one powerful server and many less-powerful client computers.  An example is the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP), recently adopted by the Kamloops District 73 School (see article: http://www.sd73.bc.ca/district-operations.php/page/linux-in-education/). Free Geek's own LTSP lab is composed of Pentium-II computers.
-Our membership is generally is agreement that, with the possible exception of overseas shipping, a residual
+Our membership is generally is agreement that, with the possible exception of overseas shipping, a residual lifespan criteria is wastefully restrictive. It would needlessly prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, and greatly reduce the amount of reusable product, inherent educational benefits and research opportunities.
@@ Line 97: / Line 85: @@
 D. Conclusion
-We support in principle the regulation of computer reuse organizations in BC.  If our outstanding concerns can be
+We support in principle the regulation of computer reuse organizations in BC.  We look forward to further involvement in the development of this program.
 Appendix. Commentary from Basel Action Network
-Free Geek's opinions on e-waste and recycling are strongly influenced
+Free Geek's opinions on e-waste and recycling are strongly influenced by those of the Basel Action Network (BAN). The following is a BAN statement articulating their position.
-by those of our friend and ally, the Basel Action Network (BAN). The following is BAN's statement.
 Basel Action Network maintains that:

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Free Geek's membership met recently to discuss the proposed standard.  We are very encouraged by the spirit of the
 document, particularly in its attempts to link acceptable re-use guidelines to transparency.  We strongly agree that there is
-a need for certifying reuse organizations and resellers in BC, and that strict standards to which these
+a critical need to certify re-use organizations and resellers in BC, and that strict standards to which these
 organizations can be held will go a long way toward eliminating unethical or illegal practices.  However, our
 membership has a number of serious concerns, which will be described in detail later in this document along with

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Free Geek's membership met recently to discuss the proposed standard.  We are very encouraged by the spirit of the
-document, as it attempts to cleave acceptable re-use guidelines to transparency.  We strongly agree that there is
+document, particularly in its attempts to link acceptable re-use guidelines to transparency.  We strongly agree that there is
 a need for certifying reuse organizations and resellers in BC, and that strict standards to which these
 organizations can be held will go a long way toward eliminating unethical or illegal practices.  However, our
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 proposed resolutions, the most serious being as follows:
-. We cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. At
+. We are uncomfortable with formal requirments to endorse BC's EPR program, and to the mandatory direction of all unusable electronics to recyclers chosen without our consent.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not yet audited. An organisation like ours must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without undue bias. We consider articulated standards more constructive than mandatory recyclers.
-. We feel the residual lifespan criteria is needlessly restrictive and would prohibit innovative reuse and
+. We feel the residual lifespan criteria is wastefully restrictive and would prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, greatly reducing the amount of reusable product, as well as its inherent educational benefits and research opportunities.
 The remainder of this document comprises a detailed listing of all of our concerns, proposed resolutions, and commentary from the Basel Action Network.
@@ Line 26: / Line 22: @@
 . We strongly agree with the majority of this item. However, clarification of the term "incineration" would be helpful, and how it relates to smelting.  There has been speculation that e-waste collected at official depots will be wholly smelted; this would hinder re-use organizations from participating meaningfully in the program.
-. At this time we are unable to evaluate the program's environmental practices, as they have yet to be fully articulated.  An organisation like ours must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without undue bias. Therefore we would not be able to commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. Instead of a mandated recycler, we prefer articulated standards like those provided by the Basel Action Network (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries; see the BAN pledge at http://ww.ban.org/pledge/electronics_recycler_pledge.pdf)
+. An organisation like ours must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without undue bias. At this time we are unable to evaluate the program's environmental practices, as they have yet to be fully articulated. Therefore we cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. Instead of a mandated recycler, we prefer articulated standards like those provided by the Basel Action Network (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries; see the BAN pledge at http://ww.ban.org/pledge/electronics_recycler_pledge.pdf)
 . We agree.
@@ Line 82: / Line 78: @@
 systems since there is no need to purchase new software licenses.
-. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would divert a large
+. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would wastefully divert a large
 amount of working, reusable hardware to recycling.  In particular, thin client networks
 can be created using one powerful server and many less-powerful client computers.  An example

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 . We strongly agree with the majority of this item. However, clarification of the term "incineration" would be helpful, and how it relates to smelting.  There has been speculation that e-waste collected at official depots will be wholly smelted; this would hinder re-use organizations from participating meaningfully in the program.
-. At this time we are unable to evaluate the program's environmental practices.  Therefore an organisation like ours cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. We must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without undue bias towards organisations responsible for the program.  Instead of a mandated recycler, we prefer articulated standards like those provided by the Basel Action Network (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries; see the BAN pledge at http://ww.ban.org/pledge/electronics_recycler_pledge.pdf)
+. At this time we are unable to evaluate the program's environmental practices, as they have yet to be fully articulated.  An organisation like ours must always reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without undue bias. Therefore we would not be able to commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. Instead of a mandated recycler, we prefer articulated standards like those provided by the Basel Action Network (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries; see the BAN pledge at http://ww.ban.org/pledge/electronics_recycler_pledge.pdf)
 . We agree.
-. We agree, with one minor edit.
+. We agree, with one minor edit: "reload the operating system" should become "reload an operating system", to allow for the operating system loaded being different from the one previously resident on the disk prior to wiping.
 . We agree.
@@ Line 47: / Line 45: @@
 the product, to maintain individuals' privacy.
-.  We are uncomfortable with formal requirments to endorse BC's EPR program.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not audited. We desire further details regarding the phrase "co-operating with program stakeholders." We must re-iterate our mission to constant pursuit of best environmental practices, and to bring public attention to any practice that falls short. In this sense it is our pleasure to work with others to improve the program.
+.  We are uncomfortable with formal requirements to endorse BC's EPR program.  As a community-based organization promoting transparency and accountability, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not audited. We desire further details regarding the phrase "co-operating with program stakeholders." All organisations should be encouraged to incessant pursuit of best environmental practices, and to bring public attention to any practice that falls short. In this spirit it is our pleasure to work with others to improve the program.
@@ Line 56: / Line 54: @@
 With respect to systems for export to developing countries:
-We agree that there is a need to regulate the type of systems sent overseas for "re-use", as a lot of systems
+We agree that there is an urgent need to regulate the type of systems sent overseas for "re-use", as most hardware
-currently shipped under this label are in fact scrap.  An age limit is probably the best indication of the
+currently shipped under this label is in fact scrap.  An age limit is probably a better indication of the
-remaining lifespan of the system; more detailed specifciations, such as processor speed or hard disk size, are
+remaining lifespan of the system; more detailed specifications, such as processor speed or hard disk size, are
 unnecessary, since they are directly correlated with the system's age, and will in fact change over time,
 necessating updating of the standard.
@@ Line 65: / Line 63: @@
 appropriate unless there is clear provision either for proper recycling in those countries, or for shipping the
 items back to developed countries where they may be properly recycled.
 With respect to systems re-used domestically or in developed countries:
-We find the proposed minimum requirements
+We find the proposed minimum requirements to be overly simplistic and unsuited to the
 practical issues inherent in computer technology reuse, for the following reasons: