VANCOUVER REGIONAL FREENET ASSOCIATION MINUTES OF DIRECTORS' STRATEGY PLANNING WORKSHOP June 12, 1993 UBC, Vancouver, BC Regrets: Fritz Radandt 10:00 am. Review of new printed material. 10:10 am. Meeting called to order by Brian Campbell, President. 1. Agenda: Adopted, with the addition of a series of Treasurer's resolutions as the last agenda item. Moved: van Dyk, seconded: Chan, carried: unam. Introductions. 2. Background review - the last month has been a transitional phase (after meeting for four months) - committee rebuilding (Fundraising, Community/Content) - the next agm will be bigger than the bctf auditorium - challenge to reach beyond current constituents - need to define vision, goals, objectives, and develop strategies to accomplish them (see goals from constitution) -long-term vs. short term tasks/view ongoing issues - defining commercial information providers - sizing system (from # of users) - sizing system (from # of information providers) - level of support to provide for information providers? - who are target users, and what level of support required? - moderators or "trusted users" - supporters 3. FreeNet Vision: goals and objectives return to first principles - and nature of funding? - commercialism - access to commercial databases? - recognition. is this paid advertising? - "community" - how to define as in "supporting community of users", how to broaden the base of users - both access and education - initial base of users vs later members (non-English) etc) - building the community of users - control of creation - "let it grow" vs. "targeting..." and having a defining purpose - moderator vs. information providers (re- touch on SC - 2 months ago) - monitor and control of information (censorship, privacy) - separation of power - user/member - non- profit - cost-recovery - static structure vs. dynamism (change within academic world vs change in (computer) society at large - nature of learning, changing - tension of local vs internet (wide community) ie. town metaphor - information provider overlap? - public schools - (not stepping stone) - donating machines , buy and sell etc. - mentor project -public utility - (new concept? model? - regional monopoly? - 15 folks deciding vs. letting users decide (duplication of other resources?) - vision - bringing "our" values forward - stating 1st principles, then letting users decide... (Hrybyk - explanation of .org .edu etc. vs. nationalism .ca .us etc) 4. How is the structure going to work? - FreeNet paying for information? (unresolved) - microcosm vs. component will VFN merely reflect imbalances? - creation of information, with non-profits - users will reflect *all* views of society? (is this trues? - promotion of a "friendly" environment ( ie. sexual harassment etc.) - gender (other) separated areas?) - will technology affect structure of our organization? ie hierarchical vs.... (BC -things don't just flow) - FreePort has voting mechanism built in "re-engineering" - access to government information and processes - internet resources (access, vs. access to for users) - censorship and content ** abstracting general operating principles from above ** are non-traditional information providers and users Motion: "As a matter of policy, VRFA will not pay for nor charge for the information provided on the VRF." Moved: Lyons, seconded: Thomas, carried: unam. providers (for the service of providing the info, not the information itself) - service contracts, and quid pro quos, as ways of FreeNet recouping costs - public sector issues - holding the information on-site, vs. providing a gateway to information providers data - per capita support as well as cost recovery - garden/auto areas - multiple areas for fairness, vs. single-source commercial areas, vs. commercial moderation? - what if only way to get information is to buy it? - newspapers (see #2) - services - lists of commercial vendors for comparison etc. - analogy to press (disclaimer to lists, ads, etc.) - discussion - of usenet groups, moderators, user-moderation, advertising - access to non-profit databases - copyright fees, intellectual property matters ** commercialism in messages? information providers vs. question- answerers (users or formal?) building a consensus - governments and major institutions - government vs. all information providers crown corps? non governmental organizations's? 12:45 break for lunch 1:15 re-call to order 4.3 continued. Motion: "for those information providers where the level of service required warrants, primarily governments and other major institutions, the VRFA will explore service contracts or other cost-recovery methods." Moved: Thomas, seconded: van Dyk, carried: unam. Motion: To increase the number of public access points to the VRF for those without personal computers or terminals. Moved: Lyons, seconded: van Dyk, carried: unam ** call steven strengths/problems for focus/dissipations of energies - problems with committee "floaters" - membership in committees (transient members draining off energies of members) -Community/Content - information providers attending ** monthly meeting of information providers? - in conjunction with Public Relations? (like joint technical committee meetings) - joint list? - include Membership and Fundraising? (operational vs. informational aspects of meetings) - retain identities of committees? (how much longer for joint technical meetings?) - 1 member of each committee on a "task force"? (re information providers) - separating out the informational function from the "core working group" of working committees - roping in vs. dealing with, new members/information providers MG - quest of restricting committee membership? MH - chair must organize - what about proliferations? - agreement? ** general agreement - to have general informational meetings - monthly? (not necessarily stream information providers directly to Community/Content meetings) - voice mailbox? to be set up asap @ vpl Meeting Structure committee reports 1st vs. traditional meeting structure - committee reports, agenda, etc. posted beforehand - where? - who? - information meeting? (orientation) - is orientation role-specific? 7. Steps to installing a FreeNet a) establishing a budget - must have a budget for charitable tax status. Motion: Fundraising chair, treasurer, president to work on a budget, based upon the NCF proposal, and report in 30 days. Moved: Pendakur, seconded: We, carried: unam. Motion: that each committee chair build budget (for a 6 month period) and submit to Treasurer in 2 weeks" Moved: Hansen, seconded: Hrybyk, carried: unam. b) Production of a case statement - current draft case statement to be distributed for comments, by Fundraising and Public Relations c) raising funds - $100,000 as a minimum target? - tied to budget and requirements (waiting docs) d) increasing membership - 121 members - cards? receipts to be mailed when card ready - enticements to membership? retail discounts etc. - terms of ref - treasurer will report on membership and tax deductibility - who can "take" membership? - some discussion (withdrawn motion) relating to different paths of funds/receipts etc., for membership funds, to deal with public meetings etc. It was agreed that this was covered via committee terms of references - general disc of way of attracting members, by Public Relations and mc Motion: to achieve a goal 2,000 members by launch date. Moved: Hrybyk, seconded: Lehmann, carried: unam. e) broad base of institutional and community organizations (** attach categories from fundraising) - not members but "subscriptions" ( no charges) "subscriber" term? (equivalent to annual membership) Motion: for acceptance of fundraising categories as modified. Moved: Lyons, seconded: van Dyk, carried: unam. - Fundraising committee should prepare list of endorsers and subscribers (and information providers ) for the fall approach of governments - coordination function with Community/Content - $300 subscription separate from later donations, to get "subscribers" online fast - development of a "network/group" for fundraising - working together with Community/Content re endorsations f) brochures - types: general, membership, users, information providers volunteers - getting users vs. getting product together - diversity - how to embrace varied groups - targeting as users ( as well as male wasps) "special effort to recruit, esp just prior to launch" - placing terminals/equipment in community centres (britannia and other groups) for access for disenfranchised - from fundraising, targeting service groups to "sponsor" terminals * to be modified into budget g) development of procedures and guidelines for information providers and technical assistance for developing their information. - importance of not scatter-gun approach - prep list (and run by board) (see Ian's note, and Guy) - prep scripts, as well as list, including priority organizations. - targets - 50 regular, 12 special - keep #s small and do well, rather than too spread thin ** need technical/community content working group, to coordinate with information providers on developing formats, data structures etc. h) software selection - review of issues, review process, see attach. committee report - guarantees base level user (most accessible, rather than most ghee-whiz) - best in tandem development with other FreeNets Motion: to accept the committee's recommendations and licence freeport. Moved: Mayo, Seconded: Thomas. Carried: Unam. ** demo/development system - to set up on mike's sun - internet access on demo? project specs - test system, for limited # up information providers - focus for board and key volunteer users "this is how FreeNets do their work" - have training sessions for naive members Motion: to accept Mike Hrybyk's offer and set up a demo system on his machine for usage by the board, key committee members and others, for the admin and development purposes. Moved: van Dyk, seconded: We, Thomas?, carried: unam. i) develop database structure and interface ... j) select site for hardware ... k) install and test equipment ... l) select staff ... - these items to be tabled until the appropriate time and committee. M) gain government support ** get government strategy recap from brian timing of municipal government presentations * conflict with mandates of other (government funded) organizations (ie Vancouver Information Services) - coordinate with Community/Content - importance of getting the endorsers, esp. with a variety of organizations, competing for (limited) public funds (ie. our request for a 10 per capita surcharge vs. others agencies budget/slice - need to recognize that we are cooperative w these other organizations, and show bot organizations and government - issue of redirecting VRFA funds to information providers, such as case of the Redbook where information providers loses other revenue due to putting it online freenet distribution system (stats can?) - matching funds from province * - community service budget vs. government/public relations/communications budget Resolutions from the Treasurer Motion: That the treasurer be authorized to open an account at Van City Credit Union in the name of our Society. Moved: Hansen, seconded: We, carried: unam. Motion: That the Vancouver Regional Freenet Association appoint three Executive members to have signing authority on the account, and that two out the three appointed members signature appear on every cheque drawn on the account. Moved: hansen, Seconded: we, Carried:u The three members appointed were: Thomas Hansen, Brian campbell and Sandy Mayo. Motion: That the authority to expend Society funds be based on the following: Expenditure over $1,000 be approved by the Executive Board Expenditure between $100 to $1,000 be approved by at least two of the three signing officers. Expenditures below $100 be approved, at his discretion, the Treasurer. Moved: hansen, Seconded:we, Carried:u Motion: That only funds appropriated by the Executive Board can be expended against. Moved: hansen, Seconded: coates Carried: u Motion: That the Executive Board appropriate $1,500 for following expenditures. -$850 US for Freeport Software -the remaining amount be distributed between phone lines, stationary supplies and miscellaneous items. issue of openness of board meetings other - Freenets - affiliation - revise bios - observers Motion: that the board mailing list be private Moved: hrybyk, Seconded: we, Carried: u * secretary to clarify on issue of open access to members' register. Other correspondence, items roger hard letter and PRAT -background - discussion of how freenets link up, nature of and involvement in, inter-freenet associations discussion without clear consensus on having restrictions on who may attend board meetings, in the interest of efficiency, vs. desire to have as many points of view represented as possible. who should be able to attend board meetings by right (members only) and what status they have (the right to a voice?) Motion: *** unclear notes *** (original motion defeated) final version: to make board meetings restricted to members, with observers welcome but having no voice or vote Moved: thomas, Seconded: buss, Carried: Motion: to direct president to make the appropriate official contact with the existing canadian FreeNets, the National Capital FreeNet and the Vancouver Island FreeNet, concerning the found of the Canadian Community Computing Network (or similar organizations). Moved: Mayo, seconded: Thomas, carried: Unam. Tasks for board members To report on by next meeting: Orientation meetings - We, Lehmann, Pendakur, and someone to be determined from the Public Relations committee Endorsations - Lyons, Gendron Task force on disenfranchised groups - Coates, Chan 21st - Community/Content - Lehmann, Thomas, Chan, Lyons Fall conference - van Dyk, We Newsletter - We, Pendakur Held until next meeting: membership enticements (secretary to provide) background on canarie (article)