----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Comment from the "Traditional" QUANTA Committee
> gwicks wrote : >> Sorry, John, but you are missing the point. In this case Quanta should >> not >> have needed a request. There are times when Quanta needs to take an >> initiative, >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Geoff >> > I'm not so sure I agree with you there. > You can't expect Quanta to contact all those with potential projects. > Surely it would be more reasonable for that person to contact Quanta? > Sorry, this is going to be a long email. Can we go back to first principles? It the last few weeks there has been an enormous amount of criticism of Quanta for its "failure" or "unwillingness" to fund the Goldfire project. Quanta has been told, sometimes by non-members, that it is its duty, if necessary, to use up all of its capital on the Goldfire project. Quanta has been unfairly and unjustly maligned. In 2004 a group of us were prepared to present a business case to Quanta for funding of the project. This never happened for the simple reason that Nasta himself was not enthusiastic about Quanta involvement. I do not know what Nasta's present attitude is, but I have no reason to believe it has changed. I can also see good reasons, partly because of the links between his work situation and Goldfire, why he took this attitude. In the circumstances Quanta cannot have any involvement in the Goldfire project. For all that muchof the criticism of Quanta over its capital is justified. Nevertheless I believe Quanta has changed a lot of the last two years. The huge protest we had on this list at the end of 2004 when Quanta chairman John Mason threatened to close it down, not realising that it was not his to close down, was an enormous shock to Quanta and changed a lot of attitudes. Among other things I think Quanta is now more willing to make use of its capital than it was three years ago. Unfortunately some of the old thinking tends to persist and Quanta still gives the impression of being a bureaucratic body resisting change and expenditure. Even more unfortunately this has been combined with a tendency for this committee to give more power to itself and less to the members. I have had a lot of experience of constitutions and I have never seen one which gives the executive so much power and the members so little as the Quanta Constitution. It is a most unhealthy situation when that executive is safeguarding £12,000 of members' money. (Please note I am talking structures, not people here. I am not implying a lack of integrity by the committee.) Other worrying features of Quanta are that it has lost 86 members in two years, and that it is proving more and more difficult to service the vast majority of members. Frankly, if I did not have QL Today responsibilities and attend shows, I would not be a member of Quanta. Quanta means very little to me. I don't read the most of the magazine, the website hasn't been updated in over a year and I use download libraries, not Quanta. I hear many people saying similar things, but who remain in Quanta as a form of loyalty. Quanta more than anything else needs to look at its image and in particular at the bad financial reputation it has. I am not suggesting that Quanta embraces every harebrained scheme that appears on this list, and I also fully agree that a detailed business plan is necessary for major investments. At the same time it is also important Quanta keeps an eye out for projects for which it could be involved, and itself takes an initiative, because this will show a great willingness to be an active partner in the QL community. The USB project was a good example of this. It concerns a major need of the QL community, it was not expensive and it involves an established trader with a proven track record. As it happens Tony Firshman has intervened effectively, but now he will rightly get the kudos and not Quanta. This next bit is going to hurt. John Gilpin is being dishonest and disingenuous in his financial and other objections. In 1995 Quanta made an expenditure of £576 of members' money after just 3 telephone calls to 4 of the 6 committee members. (The other two were on holiday.) One of the four, me, said no, but it was a democratic decision. If the committee want to do it the machinery is in place for quick decision making. Within 24 hours its is possible for an email exchange to take place between all committee members. We did it several times when I was on the committee. Quanta also has an efficient secretary and Sarah Gilpin has ensured that telephone decisions are confirmed by email and the emails recorded in the minutes, Best Wishes, Geoff _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
