Talk:Meta Question - Revision history

Sautedman: /* Growth and Consequences */ new section

2010-01-11T00:06:41Z

Growth and Consequences: new section

192.168.254.89 at 19:42, 9 October 2005

2005-10-09T19:42:00Z

192.168.254.89 at 17:34, 24 January 2005

2005-01-24T17:34:42Z

Moorere at 02:49, 23 January 2005

2005-01-23T02:49:44Z

Moorere at 02:48, 23 January 2005

2005-01-23T02:48:40Z

Moorere at 02:46, 23 January 2005

2005-01-23T02:46:37Z

Moorere: /* Computers per capita */

2005-01-23T02:45:19Z

Computers per capita

192.168.3.7 at 21:02, 22 January 2005

2005-01-22T21:02:02Z

Rfs: /* Computers per capita */

2005-01-20T00:17:39Z

Computers per capita

Rfs: /* Computers per capita */

2005-01-20T00:17:14Z

Computers per capita

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 11 January 2010
Line 126:		Line 126:

	--moorere 13:02, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)		--moorere 13:02, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)
		+
		+	== Growth and Consequences ==
		+
		+	We need to be asking the most basic question here: 'should we grow big'. As I see it, we must grow. After all, the larger we become, the more good work we can do.
		+
		+	However, this will most likely have dramatic consequences. Growth is dependent on a more articulated command chain in order to ensure prompt responses to changing situations and to minimize conflict/inconsistency between diverse sub-parts. We will need hierarchy in some form. Furthermore, we may eventually be forced to compromise other aspects of FG's operations. For instance, what if we grow large enough that it is no longer feasible to only work with recyclers that do not employ non-incarcerated labor? It is also possible that we could grow too much and saturate the market in a community with recycled computers, obsoleting ourselves as all we do from there is patch up increasingly outdated systems.
		+
		+	I think the responses to these issues and answers will be the most helpful way to determine how big we should grow and how we should grow big.
		+
		+	My handle isn't very informative as to who I am. I am Dustin, a Hardware Grants Intern. [[User:Sautedman\|Sautedman]] 00:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 :* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.
 :* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
 -------------

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 :* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
-|_____________<br>
+-------------
 In relation to the "Government Subsidized Free Geek" scenario, as a realistic near or midterm possibility, I'm not quite seeing governments charging a fee on technology at time of purchase and then paying organizations to collect and responsibly dispose of them.  But government does subsidize nonprofits by providing a tax benefit for individuals who choose to contribute money.  Were Free Geek to have some sort of government contract in a context where recycling were mandatory, I can't imagine how that might change (for instance) my own attitude and feelings around recycling and Free Geek's programs in general.  It's just too nebulous and speculative for me to imagine.
@@ Line 111: / Line 110: @@
 That being said, I like the Maximum Free Geek scenario... except we should be open approximately thirty hours a day, 10-12 days per week.
-<br>-<br>moorere 13:02, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 :* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
-|_____________
+|_____________<br>
-from Rachelle:
+from Rachelle:<br>
 In relation to the "Government Subsidized Free Geek" scenario, as a realistic near or midterm possibility, I'm not quite seeing governments charging a fee on technology at time of purchase and then paying organizations to collect and responsibly dispose of them.  But government does subsidize nonprofits by providing a tax benefit for individuals who choose to contribute money.  Were Free Geek to have some sort of government contract in a context where recycling were mandatory, I can't imagine how that might change (for instance) my own attitude and feelings around recycling and Free Geek's programs in general.  It's just too nebulous and speculative for me to imagine.

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 :* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
+|_____________
 In relation to the "Government Subsidized Free Geek" scenario, as a realistic near or midterm possibility, I'm not quite seeing governments charging a fee on technology at time of purchase and then paying organizations to collect and responsibly dispose of them.  But government does subsidize nonprofits by providing a tax benefit for individuals who choose to contribute money.  Were Free Geek to have some sort of government contract in a context where recycling were mandatory, I can't imagine how that might change (for instance) my own attitude and feelings around recycling and Free Geek's programs in general.  It's just too nebulous and speculative for me to imagine.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:46, 23 January 2005
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.		:* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.
	:* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.		:* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
		+
		+
		+	In relation to the "Government Subsidized Free Geek" scenario, as a realistic near or midterm possibility, I'm not quite seeing governments charging a fee on technology at time of purchase and then paying organizations to collect and responsibly dispose of them. But government does subsidize nonprofits by providing a tax benefit for individuals who choose to contribute money. Were Free Geek to have some sort of government contract in a context where recycling were mandatory, I can't imagine how that might change (for instance) my own attitude and feelings around recycling and Free Geek's programs in general. It's just too nebulous and speculative for me to imagine.
		+
		+	Here I'd like to say something that's been on my mind for awhile: I feel we should give more thought to understanding how a collective may usefully relate and present itself within the larger community of nonprofits (other organizations that get grants).
		+
		+	I feel we should be understanding and perfecting what we can and desire to do for others -what we're passionate about- as a first step, and <b>then</b> reflect about how these activities and programs may be tuned and elaborated and diversified as sources of revenue. It seems that in every new programatic suggestion the possibility of generating income from it is presented in almost the same breath. I'm suggesting that this tends to unduly raise the bar for volunteer participation.
		+
		+	The goal of one grant needn't define hard boundaries of all of Free Geek's future collaborative efforts (as we can see from the stirrings of revitalization of Cheep Geeks as Homestreet concludes). But personally I feel any sort of free services qualified volunteers might choose to provide to nonprofits of <i>any</i> size (including start-ups) would have unknown but far-reaching positive effects on future revenue generation.
		+
		+	Free Geek is a business, and it seems to me that our peers in business aren't other organizations like Free Geek, but other nonprofits.
		+
		+	That being said, I like the Maximum Free Geek scenario... except we should be open approximately thirty hours a day, 10-12 days per week.
		+	<br>-<br>moorere 13:02, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:45, 23 January 2005
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.		:* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.
	:* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.		:* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
−
−	In relation to the "Government Subsidized Free Geek" scenario, as a realistic near or midterm possibility, I'm not quite seeing governments charging a fee on technology at time of purchase and then paying organizations to collect and responsibly dispose of them. But government does subsidize nonprofits by providing a tax benefit for individuals who choose to contribute money. Were Free Geek to have some sort of government contract in a context where recycling were mandatory, I can't imagine how that might change (for instance) my own attitude and feelings around recycling and Free Geek's programs in general. It's just too nebulous and speculative for me to imagine.
−
−	Here I'd like to say something that's been on my mind for awhile: I feel we should give more thought to understanding how a collective may usefully relate and present itself within the larger community of nonprofits (other organizations that get grants).
−
−	I feel we should be understanding and perfecting what we can and desire to do for others -what we're passionate about- as a first step, and <b>then</b> reflect about how these activities and programs may be tuned and elaborated and diversified as sources of revenue. It seems that in every new programatic suggestion the possibility of generating income from it is presented in almost the same breath. I'm suggesting that this tends to unduly raise the bar for volunteer participation.
−
−	The goal of one grant needn't define hard boundaries of all of Free Geek's future collaborative efforts (as we can see from the stirrings of revitalization of Cheep Geeks as Homestreet concludes). But personally I feel any sort of free services qualified volunteers might choose to provide to nonprofits of <i>any</i> size (including start-ups) would have unknown but far-reaching positive effects on future revenue generation.
−
−	~~Free Geek is a business, and it seems to me that our peers in business aren't other organizations like Free Geek, but other nonprofits.~~
−
−	~~That being said, I like the Maximum Free Geek scenario... except we should be open approximately thirty hours a day, 10-12 days per week.~~
−	~~<br>-<br>moorere [[User:192.168.3.7\|192.168.3.7]] 13:02, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 22 January 2005
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.		:* Metro said we recycled 12% of the ewaste processed in the area in 2002. That is 12% of what was recycled. However, less than 15% was recycled, so our share was 12% of 15% or about 2%. That number's lower than my estimates, so take this all with a grain of salt.
	:* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.		:* The more of this we want, the harder we have to try to get it. That is, if the best anyone could ever do is 50%, to get that 50% we'd have to market the hell out of Free Geek.
		+
		+	In relation to the "Government Subsidized Free Geek" scenario, as a realistic near or midterm possibility, I'm not quite seeing governments charging a fee on technology at time of purchase and then paying organizations to collect and responsibly dispose of them. But government does subsidize nonprofits by providing a tax benefit for individuals who choose to contribute money. Were Free Geek to have some sort of government contract in a context where recycling were mandatory, I can't imagine how that might change (for instance) my own attitude and feelings around recycling and Free Geek's programs in general. It's just too nebulous and speculative for me to imagine.
		+
		+	Here I'd like to say something that's been on my mind for awhile: I feel we should give more thought to understanding how a collective may usefully relate and present itself within the larger community of nonprofits (other organizations that get grants).
		+
		+	I feel we should be understanding and perfecting what we can and desire to do for others -what we're passionate about- as a first step, and <b>then</b> reflect about how these activities and programs may be tuned and elaborated and diversified as sources of revenue. It seems that in every new programatic suggestion the possibility of generating income from it is presented in almost the same breath. I'm suggesting that this tends to unduly raise the bar for volunteer participation.
		+
		+	The goal of one grant needn't define hard boundaries of all of Free Geek's future collaborative efforts (as we can see from the stirrings of revitalization of Cheep Geeks as Homestreet concludes). But personally I feel any sort of free services qualified volunteers might choose to provide to nonprofits of <i>any</i> size (including start-ups) would have unknown but far-reaching positive effects on future revenue generation.
		+
		+	Free Geek is a business, and it seems to me that our peers in business aren't other organizations like Free Geek, but other nonprofits.
		+
		+	That being said, I like the Maximum Free Geek scenario... except we should be open approximately thirty hours a day, 10-12 days per week.
		+	<br>-<br>moorere [[User:192.168.3.7\|192.168.3.7]] 13:02, 22 Jan 2005 (PST)

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 :That looks like maybe 137,000+ gizmos this year assuming something like current trends (the last two years are a steady 1.57% over the previous years). Accepting Matthew's five year lifecyle and 1.5 million people within driving distance and the rest of his formula I get:
-* 825,000 personal computers in the metro area, meaning 5,362,500 gizmos
+:* 825,000 personal computers in the metro area, meaning 5,362,500 gizmos
-* 1,072,500 gizmos being discarded each year in the area
+:* 1,072,500 gizmos being discarded each year in the area
-* 137,000 gizmos will be received at Free Geek this year (about 13% of the total).
+:* 137,000 gizmos will be received at Free Geek this year (about 13% of the total).
 :Not the 3-5% figure Matthew suggests, but 3-4 times that rate. Nevertheless, we could grow about eight times over (if everyone recycled and we had a monopoly). Of course that discounts folks who toss their gizmos in the trash, donate them to goodwill, or use other recyclers. It seems unlikely we'd ever have more than 50% of the market (less than four times what we get now), but that's still some room to grow.