Rfs: /* stillflame's point of view */

2005-03-18T02:00:50Z

stillflame's point of view

Stillflame: stillflame's point of view

2005-01-27T22:39:25Z

stillflame's point of view

Rfs at 17:11, 21 January 2005

2005-01-21T17:11:48Z

Rfs: Clarification?

2005-01-21T17:09:54Z

Clarification?

New page

Is this a counter-proposal to the already in process "Future of Collab" proposal, or is it just a change in how hardware grants would work?

If it's a change in how the Hardware Grants program works, then a few of things:

* It seems like the place for the proposal would be the Hardware Grants group and not the Council.
* I think (some minor flaws aside) the Hardware Grants program is working OK.
* Would there be then two groups Hardware Grants and NAP? (If so, it sounds kind of like overkill.)
* As to the biggest flaw in the Hardware Grants process (takes a long time), how does this address that? (That is, why will shepherds respond more quickly if the queue/group/email list is called NAP, rather than hardware grants?)

[[User:Rfs|rfs]] 09:09, 21 Jan 2005 (PST)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 i'll start by reacting to rfs.
-i see this proposal to be a counter proposal to [[The Future of Collab]] proposal and also a change to the [[Hardware Grants]] program...
+i see this proposal to be a counter proposal to [[Nonprofit Assistance Program Proposal|The Future of Collab]] proposal and also a change to the [[Hardware Grants]] program...
 :*It seems like the place for the proposal would be the Hardware Grants group and not the Council.
 not if this change would mean a significant change to the way freegeek interfaces with non-profits.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 27 January 2005
Line 10:		Line 10:

	[[User:Rfs\|rfs]] 09:09, 21 Jan 2005 (PST)		[[User:Rfs\|rfs]] 09:09, 21 Jan 2005 (PST)
		+
		+	== stillflame's point of view ==
		+
		+	i'll start by reacting to rfs.
		+
		+	i see this proposal to be a counter proposal to [[The Future of Collab]] proposal and also a change to the [[Hardware Grants]] program...
		+	:*It seems like the place for the proposal would be the Hardware Grants group and not the Council.
		+	not if this change would mean a significant change to the way freegeek interfaces with non-profits.
		+
		+	:* I think (some minor flaws aside) the Hardware Grants program is working OK.
		+	it is doing a good job at what it is currently meant to do, but this proposal would be to expand it's scope.
		+
		+	:* Would there be then two groups Hardware Grants and NAP? (If so, it sounds kind of like overkill.)
		+	my opinion is no. i'll expand on this further down.
		+
		+	:* It seems like it would be harder for a NP to "just get a computer" from us this way.
		+	so there will be two categories of requests, "i need a computer" and "i need a solution" (that is, "i don't know what i want"). often, the people who are asking for a computer don't actually know what they want, but they think a computer will help. these computers we give away, only to be received by unknowing hands and not put to any good use. we don't yet follow up on many of our grants, so we can't know that this is common or even if it happens at all, but it is a possibility. still, for those people who actually just need a computer, the shepherding process could remain largely they same, but would include more preliminary questioning to make sure the computer will do them well, and could mean more follow up to make sure the hardware is fulfilling its prescribed purpose. these are things we could do with the grants program right now, and that's exactly the point of doing it this way. we'll begin to address more of the needs of non-profits from within our current structure.
		+
		+	:* As to the biggest flaw in the Hardware Grants process (takes a long time), how does this address that? (That is, why will shepherds respond more quickly if the queue/group/email list is called NAP, rather than hardware grants?)
		+	currently, the monthly meeting of the grants group is to decide which grants we can approve, after which we assign a shepherd. consider instead assigning shepherds immediately (or as immediately as those shepherds feel like assigning themselves, as the process may be), but only allowing them to ask questions of the recipient until the larger body meets. at the larger meeting, we would be tasked with resolving what to do with each request, taking into account what information the shepherd would have already asked about. that group would also be tasked with rejecting all the requests for which noone stepped up to shepherd.
		+
		+
		+	now onto what i think this should actually look like. [[The Future of Collab]] proposal has the start small and work into bigger things approach, and i think that this proposal would use nearly the exact same timeline. start first with growing tech support and education. then, when they're strong enough, add a list of classes and some tech support to the things we can give away. then non-profits can apply for a grant to get "a computer, a class on how to use it, and 10 tech support calls" or whatever. this might be something we should be offering our grant recipients <strong>right now</strong>. this would be small, not all grant recipients would want anything like it, but it would really be nice for some of them. the grants meetings would still have the same restrictions of "what can freegeek give away this month", and they wouldn't be allowed to give out any more than that.
		+
		+
		+	the most significant addition to the grants program is going to be the extent to which we do needs assessment in the beginning. especially if this is something we expect non-profits to pay for, it could take more time than we have available. as the initial tasks become more involved, we will also begin to limit the people we can have as shepherds, or at least increase the barrier to becoming one. this means that the more difficult the things we give away are, the fewer we'll give away. i (as a shepherd) will jump up at the easy ones (for example if personal telco wants some boxes), and will shy away from big nasty ones ("we want to move our mental health clinic to linux"). for getting paid, we would need to have a very distinct line at which we would say to the non-profit "while we can give you things for free, until you can clearly and knowledgably state what things you want from us, we won't give you anything. if you want, you can hire us to help you figure out what you want.". something like "if it takes us more than 15 minutes or 2 emails to figure out what you need" or something as this line would work.
		+
		+
		+	when the long term goals come into fruition and we start telling non-profits they should have custom software built for them and that they should hire a sysadmin, these are things we'll have to put into that initial needs assessment, and the howto for shepherding will grow even more. it may even have to become a more hierarchical process based on what needs we begin to discover the non-profit has. "i want 4 computers" may turn out to mean "i want to convert my office to linux" may turn out to mean "i want my access database ported" may turn out to mean "i want to start a freegeek in south africa". if the shepherd who takes this in the beginning can carry them through figuring out all of this, great. if not, they can go back to the group and request assisstance, or hand it off to someone who can deal with the new needs, or eventually just carry it over to the next monthly meeting and let the group decide we're not going to touch it (or maybe that we're all going to move to south africa =:).
		+
		+
		+	i think the most important aspect of my opinion is that i don't think this program should have a coordinator who is the single point of access for all non-profits. i think we should do things with a group of people, each working on some things a little, and meeting occasionally to make bigger decisions and deal with the things noone wanted to deal with on their own.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * I think (some minor flaws aside) the Hardware Grants program is working OK.
 * Would there be then two groups Hardware Grants and NAP? (If so, it sounds kind of like overkill.)
 * As to the biggest flaw in the Hardware Grants process (takes a long time), how does this address that? (That is, why will shepherds respond more quickly if the queue/group/email list is called NAP, rather than hardware grants?)
 [[User:Rfs|rfs]] 09:09, 21 Jan 2005 (PST)

Talk:Old NAP Proposal - Revision history

Rfs: /* stillflame's point of view */

Stillflame: stillflame's point of view

Rfs at 17:11, 21 January 2005

Rfs: Clarification?