Hi Sid, Sid Bachtiar wrote: >> You mean a situation like Section 92a ? >> > > Section 92a was scrapped because in the end ISPs walked away. There were probably several things which had to come together for s92a to be withdrawn ISP non-cooperation was probably very important but it may not have been sufficient. If the public had been indifferent then maybe arms could have been bent.
All the best, Grant > The law > was stupid from day one. The public outcry of course helped to raise > the issue nationwide (worldwide), but not the main reason why it was > scrapped. It would have been passed had ISPs came to an agreement. > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Keri Henare > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> My point about the clothing factory story is that belly-aching in >>> public about these things is often just the final act in an >>> irreversible situation and that no amount of public outcry will undo a >>> done deal. >>> >> You mean a situation like Section 92a ? >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> Keri Henare >> >> [e] [email protected] >> [m] 021 874 552 >> [w] www.kerihenare.com >> >> On 29/04/2009, at 12:28 PM, Kent Parker wrote: >> >> >>> My point about the clothing factory story is that belly-aching in >>> public about these things is often just the final act in an >>> irreversible situation and that no amount of public outcry will undo a >>> done deal. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 29, 12:11 pm, Mark Rickerby <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think the idea of a cultural portal is a bad one, but I have >>>> never felt NZLive was a good realization of this idea. However I >>>> remain unconvinced with the arguments about wasting taxpayers money >>>> because the vast majority of 'waste' goes directly into Wellington's >>>> local economy anyway (it's easy to understand why others feel >>>> differently), but I do agree in the case that the money has clearly >>>> been squandered. I'm not sure how clear it is in this case, the only >>>> empirical evidence seems to be the graph of traffic stats. >>>> >>>> What nobody has raised is that this outcome is might be due in no >>>> small part to the private sector contractors who made the site >>>> lacking >>>> the complete vision (or perhaps the $$ they were demanding) to >>>> produce >>>> something that lived up to the concept and promise of a cultural >>>> portal, and instead has become a basic events guide site. >>>> >>>> Most of the issues being expressed about what NZLive should or should >>>> not be doing are not just a case of government management >>>> (mismanagement if you insist), but are emergent from the relationship >>>> between the government and private sector. To a large extent, >>>> government departments rely on the good judgment of their business >>>> and >>>> design partners to guide them. >>>> >>>> When agencies enter into these relationships, there is not >>>> necessarily >>>> a clear pathway from the high level rhetoric of ministers, to the >>>> actual administration of funding and management of projects. That's >>>> just a simple fact of any hierarchical organization. >>>> >>>> A lot of people arguing about this kind of spending don't realize how >>>> much of our educational and cultural fabric is derived from this >>>> funding, and how impoverished we would be without the various things >>>> that are being funded. Spending money is not synonymous with wastage, >>>> each case has to be assessed in context. >>>> >>>> I would be hesitant to publicly lambast government and MCH, without >>>> first knowing the details of these relationships and the lines of >>>> responsibility. Promoting arts and culture is a part of MCH's >>>> mandate, >>>> and whether or not NZLive achieves this, it is designed to achieve >>>> this, which is enough to justify its existence from a funding >>>> perspective. Looking at the documents it's clear that this project >>>> was >>>> initiated long before EventFinder launched, so at the point of its >>>> initiation, there would have been no such service. >>>> >>>> The problem I have trying to process some of the arguments here, is >>>> that apart from the graph of traffic, I don't see what the evidence >>>> is >>>> that the website has failed to meet its objectives. Overpriced, yes. >>>> Failure, unclear. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, I would rather see the NZLive money spent on >>>> arts >>>> funding directly. >>>> >>>> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
