----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] The way forward?
> On 22 Nov 2004 at 15:59, Dave P wrote: > > > Personally, I think Quanta is irrelevant. (...) > and , later on: > > For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there > > to do something TRULY revolutionary. (...)The only organization with the funds is a > > private organization that is only allowed to benefit its members - Quanta. > > So Quanta isn't irrelevant? > Didn't they extend a loan to D&D systems to get the Q60 built (further?). > (...) Yes they did, and a very straight forward and successful arrangement it was and fully repaid within 12 months. This is the sort of thing that Quanta would be willing to consider for other projects but no one has come forward with a project. John Gilpin.(Treasurer) > > I don't blame the Quanta committee for not doing anything. (...) > > In my company, the solution for this is to decide on three or four clear > > courses of action. Allocate each member with ten points, and allow them to > > allocate the points in any proportion to the proposed paths. At the end of > > this exercise you have a clear understanding of which projects have the > > most and least support. > > Isn't the fact that Quanta isn't doing this exactly what they are blamed for? > > (...later email...) > > The real problem for Nasta is such a simple one. He has a complete design > > ready to go - he just needs the time and resources to follow it through. > > Some of us have sourced and are holding components for his projects but > > without a couple of months away from yucky jobs, and the resources to get > > everything made to a suitable standard, it won't happen. > > I disagree in parts. One of Nasta's "problems" is that he seems to be a hardware man > only (sorry to discuss you as if you weren't there, Nasta). Let me hasten to add that I > have met him only once briefly at QL 2004 and found him extremeny likable. > > Nasta gave a very interesting (and witty) talk about two projects, one of which could > be seen as being not that far from completion, and he seems to be driving it forward > technically very nicely. > > What, IMHO, Nasta doesn't seem to realise is that it is also up to him to drive the > project forward financially - no one else is going to do that for him. > > Why doesn't he say (for example here on this list) "I need so much money and if I > have that, I'll build (whatever - a prototype, a working version ..) within so many > months". > > There have alreay been people on this list who have stated that they would support > new projects financially... > > > For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there > > to do something TRULY revolutionary. I have these quaint ideas of miniATX > > motherboards using standard everything and a pair of 68060s - all this is > > possible if it's funded. > > To what tune? > > > Maybe [Quanta] misinterpret the rules and think that "benefit" means "do > > business with" - they can do business with any QLer... > > But they do have to make sure that the projects they finance are financially sound and > of benefit to many of their members (and NOT the QL community in general. If we > want Quanta to be of benefit to the QL community in general, we must all become > members). What if many of the Quanta members are still sticking to their original QLs Now you're talking guys. How many membership forms do you want? New members (or old ones returning) are always welcome to Quanta!! John Gilpin. (Membership Secretary) > and don't plan to upgrade? Shoudl Quanta really finance something they don't want? > > This reminds me of a problem we had in "QLCF", the (now defunct) french QL users > club. We, too, had a bit of money on the side. During an AGM it was proposed that we > use some of this money to fund development of SMSQ/E for the QXL. IIRC this wasn't > even voted on because the consenus of those who were present was that this was > something worthwhile to put our money in. So a (modest) amount was given to TT > towards that development - in return, we were allowed to distribute that version aongst > our members - not all of whom (far from it) even had a QXL. Some bought one > because of it, though. > > But we already had done something like that earlier - for example, we had bought a > licence for QPAC II for all of our mermbers (and I think QD, too). QLCF was > responsible for translating & duplicating the manuals etc, copying the disks and > distributing them, a work which was undertaken for free by a member. > > At the time, I felt that this was a good way to act for us, because > 1 - Our members got good software > 2 - Traders and authors got money > 3 - Secretly I hoped this would be a beneficial spiral, since some members would buy > new hardware to run the new software on, tus financing the QL world even further. > > The problem is that you can't really do that with hardware, which, for each item sold > has a definite cost so that even if some members work for free as a dedication to the > QL scene, each piece of hardware still has a definite cost... > > Wolfgang > > > -- > W. H. Lenerz > www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com > -- > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
