Not dribble at all, Rubin; just uncommonly excellent sense. Would that you were running the "Stimulus/Bailout Package" instead of the clueless cretins doing it now. I agree completely with a slow build process and staying free of entangling connections. I understand that the Treasury Department has a lot of open, unfilled positions, even at the higher levels and Timmy needs a break, so I am taking the liberty of forwarding your email, address and phone number to him today.
Old Farmer Dave On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:09 PM, H. Kurth Bemis <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 08:35 -0400, Marc Farnum Rendino wrote: > > Folks - > > > > Sounds great! Some additional ideas to throw into the mix: > > > > 1) It may well make sense to have multiple sites; perhaps start with > > *both* Burlington and Montpelier. > > > > And with multiple sites, there is the added benefit of distance/remote > > projects, driven by both need and availability. Need: Some group > > functions would/could of course require participation of both sites. > > Availability: Projects that some of us may want to work on, need > > multiple sites. Drive it from both directions. > > > > 2) As far as money is concerned: There is a great deal of grant money > > available for example: > > > > <http://www.cra.org/ccc/docs/init/Unleashing.pdf> > > > > And we have our own VT EPSCoR <http://www.uvm.edu/EPSCoR/> > > > > With more grant opportunities coming, via ARRA/stimulus > > <http://www.recovery.gov/>. > > > > I've started to dip my toe into grant-writing; do we have any other > > grant-writers? > > > > The idea being that the grant gets the project running, with some time > > to ramp up longer-term funding, such as sponsorship, dues (ex: sliding > > scale, to encourage everyone), etc. > > > > - Marc > > I didn't mention this before, and I don't know much about how other > spaces tackle this, but that won't prevent me from offering my .02. > > A space should be neutral. The organization itself should have no bias > or prejudice towards projects, suppliers or members. Accepting > corporate sponsorship, or sponsorship can and will change the neutrality > of the lab, which will ultimately deter new members from joining. > > Not that donations shouldn't be accepted, but general sponsorship should > be avoided. > > The other thing, which is much more obvious to the giver of funds and > sponsorship. HackerSpace. Sure, to most geeks we know and understand > the definition or hacker, however the rest of the world, specifically > most people, have images of doom and crime associated with the work > "hacker". At Foulab multiple opportunities have presented themselves to > us for publicity, but we decided to avoid the public eye, mainly for > that reason. I know it seems harmless, and it's only a word, and I > agree totally, but the word "Hacker" will be a stop bit for most, > especially in the public sphere. The last thing any space needs is bad > publicity, and having the word "hacker" in your name or description will > bring plenty attention in itself. > > The other nasty thing that comes along with sponsorship is control from > an outside party to some degree. The space needs to remain free from > outside influence and control to work smoothly and foster ideas and > projects. > > Also, what if a sponsor (Joes Widgets) says, "We like what we see here, > we'd like to donate over 9000 widgets for you guys to use in your > projects, just display our logo on your website and on the project that > uses the widgets we gave to you..." So everybody sets off making > something with the widgets. Let's say that Joe comes back a few months > later, and finds that the lab has used his widgets in a project that Joe > doesn't like or approve of, and he no longer wishes to continue > supporting the lab. Not only that, the widget's use enrages Joe and he > calls his junkyard lawyer on us. Bad juju for all, which can easily be > avoided by being very careful about outside donations and such. > > And government money. I wouldn't accept funding from any government > organization for several reasons, number one being that the money isn't > free. Sure it's free, and they give it to you, but it will carry a > large amount of restrictions on it's use which will stifle and limit the > lab, and possibly the space in general. Also, many hacker types are > anti-authoritarian and anti-government. > > One more thing about money and donations from outside donation. Some > projects will be illegal from the start. It's just the nature of the > lab. To think that everybody's project and ideas are going to be above > board is naive. Remember, the lab will attract the types of people > (hackers) that are used to breaking and bending rules, and generally > have a distaste for authoritarian types.... > > Finally, someone is going to have to chase those sponsors and such. > With a lab full of geeks, do you really want to be talking to > white-collars? or in the lab hacking on something. I'd choose the > latter...... > > It seems like I bring a lot of rain to this party, sorry for that, but > if the space opens and then closes a few months later, it did nobody any > good and the hard work of it's members is wasted. Better to take 6 > months if need be, build interest, build funds (donations, membership, > etc) and then have a space that is sustainable and remains in operation. > > Thanks for reading my dribble.... > ~k >
