No. Not at all. Please stop saying that this is "costly". We're coming in around $1000 for year 1, probably less as I recall. That's a small fraction of what Wondercafe.ca costs. Most of that is styling and logo and initial software licence. That's why year 2 and beyond, until we do a major update, is under $400 per year.

Financial contributions are optional. For members, guests, council, your pets, etc. They are optional. Financial contributions toward Wondercafe2.ca are optional. We can keep this running for about $30/month. People who like WC2 and voluntarily contribute should keep us running long into the future. Financial contributions are optional.

Unless...it blows up and we become huge and need our own server. Before that happens, we can combat rising hosting costs by being exceedingly boring. I'd suggest posting about the weather, but Canadians like that.

We have a new forum platform that is very efficient. We should be fine for twice the current level of forum activity. Probably 4 times the current WC forum activity, really.

I'm happy to correct you. You're wrong, because there is no requirement for posting or financial contribution to be a member. That has never been written. Ever. Anywhere. And it's not true.

I am heading off to work; however, the domain, all software and all hosting services are owned by wondercafe2 admins.

In webforums, your presence is defined by your posting history. It is how the community gets to know each other.  Posting history is a key part of your membership. 

Financial contribution is mentioned as an "or".  

Webforums and other online type areas include active.  Example:  guilds use how may raids you have participated in, or farming you have done for the bank, or newbies you ahve helped.   WebForums include your presence on line, such as helping out others, posting.  It is how your presence is known when you are not in physical proximity.  If you are looking for specific examples, I am sure you can find them, or we can look back through the notes to find what we cloned.

so, though posting is the most common activity for a member, there is room for other ways that you have actively particpated in the community. As in the examples above for say, raiding being more common than farming or helping others..

if any feedback has been less than direct or transparent, please indicate.   That seems like it is putting a negative spin on.....

I am late for heading to work,so, won't be posting again for a while.   I know others are off during the day as well and I have dinner plans, so may not be until late tonight, before I respond. 

It's in a shared account that was last paid for with my credit card, which is not kept on file at the registrar. Pinga, Mendalla and I all have login access. Yes, there has to be some trust there. There is.

Really? WC2, where any member in good standing can be a mod, is more restrictive than WC, where only Aaron can be a mod?

Discussion.

It's indicative of their commitment to the community and the best predictor that they are going to be around to be part of the council and do what is going to be required.

Because we are thankful for the contributions and people who contribute financially are obviously stakeholders in this who care that WC2 succeeds.

I hope I did that.

I can think of a couple of people in central Canada and BC that would make excellent nominees to assist the three GC but may not qualify- since I am not on Facebook I have no idea if they have been and would qualify. That's too bad.

This is good to know: members of WC2 will not have to pay to keep it running.  The costs will be managed by those who operate and own the site.

If I misuderstand your reply, Chansen, please correct me.

What is a guild, raiding and farming in this context? I am confused.

o. Not at all. Please stop saying that this is "costly". We're coming in around $1000 for year 1, probably less as I recall. That's a small fraction of what Wondercafe.ca costs. Most of that is styling and logo and initial software licence. That's why year 2 and beyond, until we do a major update, is under $400 per year.

Financial contributions are optional. For members, guests, council, your pets, etc. They are optional. Financial contributions toward Wondercafe2.ca are optional. We can keep this running for about $30/month. People who like WC2 and voluntarily contribute should keep

So to be very clear:  the 1k is assumed by the owners of WC2.   Yearly will cost about $400, andsince membership isfree, then the costs of running a site will belong to the the owners/operators. 

Financial contributions are optional : that is clear.

What is not clear is a healthy budget and financial plan for WC2. 

It is clear that operating such a site costs money.  It is not clear how it will be financed.  Three people altruistically gonna fund it?  OR are members gonna have to pony up?

So, chansen, my questions are reasonable, and should be addressed.

Which is what I have been saying since December. And lo, it is becoming true.

What's more is, we didn't go cheap. We're paying somewhere around $150 per year in hosting and domain registration. If we went with a free forum solution and just used a stock theme (look), that could have been the total financial cost per year. Total.

Instead, we went with the best forum software we could find. Because it is paid software and not open source, vulnerabilities are typically fixed much faster. It is much more secure. It runs better. It has more features.

We are also in the process of using a styling consultant to make it look familiar to WC members. It should be an online home you're proud of. It will look inviting and professional. I think it looks like an updated WC, and we're still tweaking. It borrows colours and certain elements from this site, but updates the design completely. That's going to run us $400 or so, depending on the final number.

And we're commissioning a new logo, in consultation with the UCCan so they don't object and we have to start all over.

So, to me, we're doing a rather high-end community site, and the startup costs are going to be $700 or so. Running costs I probably overestimated above. They should be closer to $300. We think a contingency is appropriate, in case something major happens that is outside my abilities and we have to hire a forum software expert. But the database will be backed up by the host, and maybe in an emergency, we throw $100 at an expert to restore our site from backups. That's about all it would be.

I've been using numbers in this ballpark for months, and never once did I get the sense that you believed me. You've been told this so many times. It's not a case of you not knowing this stuff, it's a case of you not believing, and, well, it's almost here, whether you believe me or not.

We have had financial contributions of up to $200 each from various individuals already. It is not just Pinga, Mendalla and myself. There are other contributors, though we haven't discussed among the three of us, or with the contributors, how, or if to publicly acknowledge their generousity and trust in the three of us. Some members have publicly or privately annouced their intentions to contribute, and they have stepped up.

Because the year 2 costs are so much less, I expect that if we simply state our cash reserves, people will gladly throw in $10 or so at a time to meet our yearly hosting and licence renewal fees. That's my experience - if you create a place people enjoy, some will voluntarily step up and help fund it. We shouldn't need a fundraising drive or to come to members, cap in hand. $300 isn't that much money. And if we generate $500, we can sleep easier knowing that if something happens, or usage spikes, we can cover it.

But no, I do not expect to have to ask members to "pony up". If you wish to contribute, we really appreciate it and we're glad you like the site. It feels great that people trust us that much, and it's a real motivator for us.

It is not a case of me not believing.

it is a lack of presenting a budget, and presenting real costs.  And a statement of who is going to assume costs, since there is no charge to members of WC2.

And note:  chansen you vacillate with regard to costs

These admins have worked hard. I trust them and I am disappointed that RedHead, Kimmio and Jae seem to like making things difficult.

If one knows nothing about websites and such things (ME) , I appreciate the work that  experts are doing. Thank you.

One more comment, Jae ,I read that you were not coming to the new website. Why do you have so many comments. You are not going to be here, right?

crazyheart, money will be an issue.  nothing is free, except friendship and family, and even then....  

setting up WC2 costs, maintinaining it costs$

asking for a budget and understanding the costs is not negative.  It is realistic.  dodging such questions means that there is is not forethought or long term planning.

only when pressed, do n umbers get thrown about.

I am certain that WC  members migrating to WC2 would like to know exactly the costs of running the site, and how it is being funded.  since members are not required to contribute.

Becuase if the funding stops, then WC2 stops.  Anyone thinking about volunteer atrophy in addition to funding?

You're right, redhead. Our volunteers are likely to dry up. We'll have to hire a minimum of 5 staff at $40K/year. Yearly dues for the 20 remaining members will go from $0 to $10,000.

Done right, communities like this are self-sustaining. Thousands of them, on topics from insects to asteroids. The technology is cheap, people like to gather, and some will voluntarily contribute to a good site so no one else has to worry.

There is a time to be the person you are being, and that's when admins are absent, money is being wasted or stolen, there are problems with the site or guests, and no one is around to fix it, etc.

We've been very straightforward, I think. The exact costs aren't yet known. As people atrophy, they should step aside so we get new ideas and new enthusiasm in the council. There are tens of thousands of online communities that work this way for years. How long will WC2 last? I have no idea. I don't have firm numbers, because we don't know. What if XenForo, our software, stops being updated and the company folds? Then I guess we have increased expenses for a year as we move to a new platform. That doesn't mean my range is inaccurate, because I can't possibly predict that. If some crisis like that arises, we'll deal with it. If we keep a proper contingency, we shouldn't even need to come to the members to bail us out.

But please, please understand this: A community of this size can support a forum like this without worrying about money. The cost is relatively small, split voluntarily among a handful of members. We'll keep the community up to date on finances. People will contribute if they can. Some already have on trust. Others may be waiting to see if we can pull this off. That's fine.

We don't have final numbers yet, so I'm giving ranges. I have to account for exchange rates, first year discounts, later year discounts, a style that is not yet completed and so we only have the proposal to go by, etc. But I'm not off by an order of magnitude on anything I've ever written about costs. You have been off by orders of magnitude on what you thought was required. The final tally isn't here yet, but we're way closer to my numbers than anything you've alluded to.

Money is not our biggest hurdle. It just isn't. It never was. People stepped up, just like we always said they would. How to acknowledge them without making people who don't contribute financially feel bad (they shouldn't) is a potential topic of conversation. We need members as much or more than we need money. This doesn't work without people coming to post and read. Giving people a reason to come is our biggest challenge, and all of us can contribute there, simply by doing what we've been doing for years.

This is off-topic, but I think we've gotten there anyway:

Who owns WC2?  My understanding appears to be different from others.

Hi crazyheart. I'm not trying to make trouble. Really, I'm not. I do plan to continue on into WC2, at least to some degree (I'm not sure right now exactly how much). You're right, initially I said that I wouldn't be at WC2, but I'm pretty sure I have said on one pf the threads that I now think otherwise. Since I'm planning to be there, I have a real interest in seeing the place run well. I agree with you that the three future admins have worked hard. I'm sure that they have the best interests of the community at heart. I just disagree with some of the proposed policies for running things. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Um, yeah.

[quote=Dcn. Jae][quote=crazyheart]

 I do plan to continue on into WC2, at least to some degree (I'm not sure right now exactly how much). You're right, initially I said that I wouldn't be at WC2, but I'm pretty sure I have said on one pf the threads that I now think otherwise. Since I'm planning to be there, I have a real interest in seeing the place run well. I agree with you that the three future admins have worked hard. I'm sure that they have the best interests of the community at heart. I just disagree with some of the proposed policies for running things."

Jae, whether you realize it or not, your comments undermine the good work happening with the new site.

You state, "I have a real interest in seeing the place run well".   I can't see where you have contributed anything positive to the new site to make it run well.  You don't appear to have the technical knowledge of chansen, pinga and mendalla.

"I'm sure they have the best interests...."  Another implied swipe.  Your attacks have always been personal.

Obviously your time away to reflect hasn't done anything for you.  The destructive attitude is still very much present.

Sorry if I am off topic....tired off Jae's yammering and selfish attitude.

The domain registrar and webhosting accounts are in my name, registered to an email account shared among the three of us. The software licence is in Mendalla's name, again, registered to that shared email account.

These names are simply who happened to pay for what. Pinga put the downpayment on the stylist.

We've pretty much decentralized ownership for now. If any of us dropped of the face of the Earth, the rest could continue with WC2.

i am not sure how the financial details got to be relevant to the discussion of council.

I imagine that being a member of the Council will diminish one's anonymity.  I wonder if that will keep folks from offering themselves for nomination.  What if we don't get the nine people that this document recommends that we have?

Thanks.  I think something similar has been said before, but it seemed like a good time for it to come up again.

I suppose we'll find out when it gets to that point. I'm not expecting a shortage, but maybe you're right.

As for the finances discussion, I got dragged down the wrong road. Again. I apologize.

There will be plenty of time to go over finances. Ideally, once we get a treasurer. Let's work on getting a treasurer first, though this discussion.

Sarcasm is not a good way to respond to reasonsble questions.

Financial and administrative questions arise from the defined terms Active and Continuous and the established structure of a council.

All of that is fair;  a few people paid into and created WC2.  Sought and found support using survey method

What is strange is that straight forward costs and volunteer timelines are apparently not easy to grasp and present to potential members.

Pinga has indicated that her professional life is project based - that most likely includes budgets.  Chansen has indicated that he has in the past run forums.  Mendalla has grassroots and professional experience running projects.

So why are my questions negative?

Starting a project should include a budget, and should include a plan to maintain the project, and that does mean discussing costs and volunteer time.

it seems reasonable that there is a long-term vision for WC2.  Otherwise, its a fly by the seat or your pants initiative,  which is unfair to potential members.

And so, if it is a thoughtful, well planned project, then asking for a budget and a discussion of volunteer time is not unreasonable - rather, simply responsible.

Redhead, this conversation is about council structure and selection process.

I am understanding you would like to talk about budgets etc, which was touched upon in the treasurers role and responsbility recently discussed, and as that, identified that it would be a responsibility of the treasurer and their team to develop best practices.  If you wou wish to have further discussion, it is likely the area to have it or a new thread.

Can you help me to understnad how your comments above are related to the link / blog for the council?  

We are being asked to comment on processes. To raise a point about process- either not understanding or not agreeing with something is not the same as discrediting the effort and work that went into making the site. If a person says they have an issue with a policy that they'd like to discuss- they are not saying anyone is incompetent or doesn't work hard. That's not a reasonable conclusion.

I am satisfied with and thankful for chansen's estimations. 

Edited: Sorry to continue off-track, Pinga.  I had not yet seen your suggestion to move to a new thread when mine posted.

A treasurer steps into a defined position - does not create the role and responsibilities, and then assume the role.

Redhead, that conversation should have come up with the treasurer's role.  If you would ike to have that converation, I recommend you move it to that thread.

The document is open for discussion, and there is no reason that I have to start a new thread.

Asking about WC2, its longevity, and how it will be run financially and by volunteers are good questions.

That is the purpose of this thread?  To discuss?

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the documentation as found in the link in the opening post.  I will link it here for you as well: http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/wondercafe2adm/wondercafe2-council

From the opening post, you will see the request as well

"Please keep this thread on topic. It is for discussion of the governance model for Wondercafe2 as proposed in the linked document. Moderation and Code of Conduct will be discussed in another thread after this discussion ends. Technical updates and questions will be in a new thread that we will start alongside this one. Nominations for Council will happen once we have approval of the Council model."

Well then, governance should include budgets, maintaining the site fiscally and  through volunteerism. Otherwise, it does not exist.

So how are these questions not pertinent to operating WC2? 

And yes, I read the link before posting. 

That is covered under the role of the treasurer.  I am happy to discuss it there, if you would like.

The council specifically has these responsibilities:

Responsibilities

Council has oversight of the community following best practices for non-profit, small organizations and web forums.

Council maintains appropriate records and minutes.

Day to day activities and discussions are performed through the Wondercafe2 Council Forum, a sub-forum on the site accessible only to members of Council.

Quarterly reports are brought forward by the admins / moderators through the same forum.

A virtual annual meeting is held which is to include financial, moderator and admin reports and planning for upcoming year. This may be done using a forum or through other appropriate Internet media (e.g. Adobe Connect) chosen by Council. The date, time, location, and agenda shall be publicized on appropriate Wondercafe2 forums at least a month in advance by Council.

Correction. Raising questions or concerns about the council model which includes the nomination process in it's description- is not the same as discrediting the effort that the council members have put into the site or a question of their skills. Those are greatly appreciated.

There are a couple of people I would like to nominate who may have been absent for a over month in the past year. I honestly can't remember, I just think they'd be really good nominees who may have been off for personal or health reasons. Can I ask why there is no flexibility here- because that does reduce the nomination pool and that would be unfortunate, and I do wonder why there is lack of willingness to consider accommodating on a case by case basis. If the answer is 'our house, our rules' then I will have to accept that.

Hi Pinga,

And not allowing anyone to challenge an individual nomination will not generate any discord?

We have discord now.  We have distrust now.

I guess we will have to wait to see if this proposal passes when put to a vote.

Grace and peace to you.

John

One thing to remember is that the initial council will be expanding the function and laying down some of those practices, based on the direction set in the docuument.  Operational procedures will be done internally and do not need to be part of the governance documents.

Seems that the role of treasurer will be formed by one who takes on that responsibility.

Guessing that Pinga and Chansen have to work this out.

And again:  asking for a budget and an understanding of volunteer time commitment(s) is important.

Obfuscation is also transparent.

The nomination challenge is anticipated to occur in the nomination process, RevJohn.  There will be discord as folks say why they don't want someone to be nominated.  It will be up to the council to weigh the merits of those points.

If you have a process that you would like to present for the election process , then it would be great to receive.  I think that Alex was asked to present something as well.

Here is the role of the treasurer:  http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/wondercafe2adm/treasurer

Here is the location for questions related to that role: http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-there-are-jobs-be-done

We agree your questions are important, which is why we requested the roles be defined, the council process completed, the roles nominated and filled, so that the good work can be done.(per the timeline: http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-we-move-inexorably-onwards)

Sigh. This is very rigid. I don't see the point in consulting us for our opinions if there's no flexibility to consider making changes or rationale offered anyway.

can you please explain how nomination works

Kimmio, I'm hearing you on the continuous active member thing.  It's important for volunteers to be available when needed though.  I've been thinking about people who have disappeared for short periods of time, and I feel like a month is pretty reasonable.  There have been some people I haven't seen posting here much that I would feel comfortable with them being on council.  They aren't around for this transition period though, which is important IMO just to get things running smoothly.

Maybe we could change it to no break (self-imposed) longer than a month in the last 6 or 3 months?

Maybe the current document is best as is, and this is something that could be reassessed once WC2 has been running for a while?

If they were away for over a month in the past year for personal or medical reasons and/or before they knew the eligibility rules for nomination and they express interest in committing to the role (if they are not interested then it won't be an issue anyway) and met necessary skill requirements I don't see why the continuous rule couldn't be waved, to give more people a chance.

I'd like to request a more flexible approach, is all I'm suggesting.

Chemgal, maybe. But I think the level of flexibility is being indicated now.

I'm only one voice here, however. And it's not my decision to make. It's just a request for consideration by the council. Even if the person has been here continuously, people get sick, they need to take leave- so a person's personal and medical reasons past are not indicative of their future commitment to the role, necessarily. My concern is more around flexibility not a push to get a specific person(s) into a role or push anyone out but to suggest two people who I think would good additions to the team despite their absences. I don't even know if they'd want to or not. It just crossed my mind that I think they'd be good but I wondered about their absence.

Then take the wording we have given and draft new language that fits what you are looking for. We are not rigid on this else we would not have presented it to the community for discussion. However, we are not going to read people's minds to figure out how to reword it to satisfy their concerns. If you want changes to the document, post the draft language that you would like to see in the thread where everyone can read and discuss and if there seems to be consensus over your changes, we can put them into the final document.

That applies to the nomination process as well. I have already specifically asked Alex to give us draft language on how he would do it. Pinga did the same with John.

We are open to changes but people have to propose those changes, not just say what is wrong with what we have presented.

And I ask that the financial discussion that redhead is having with chansen be spun over to a new thread so we can focus on this document.

Mendalla

...how about extenuating circumstance for disability, medical or personal reasons may be sufficient to wave the one month continuous requirement if the person expresses a willingness to committ to the role and the council finds that the nominee satisfies the necessary skills for the role.

I agree with this Mendalla - it is a responsible way forward for active members of a community. 

"extenuating circumstance for disability, medical or personal reasons may be sufficient to wave the one month continuous requirement if the person expresses a willingness to committ to the role and the council finds that the nominee satisfies the necessary skills for the role."

Kimmio, I wonder if you're taking the 'one month' piece too literally.  The spirit and intent of the guideline is clear I think - people need to be here and be active to be good & effective members of a Council.   As far as I know, no specific attendance/participation data is being recorded - so I would not get too stuck on the one month duration.  

Perhaps that clause should be added so that whoever makes the decision does not take it literally. I think the continuous posting thing needn't be defined, personally. Just a "member in good standing" who has not been suspended or banned for x amount of time would be sufficient.

I was wondering myself if the council would be scrutinizing nominated posters thread activity over the past year to find gaps and I don't think it's really necessary (and would be a pain to do). If someone who hadn't posted for a little awhile, even 3 or for months, was on the slate I wouldn't mind. As long as they have the skills and willingness and are known as a member in good standing, even if they only pop in from time to time (they might lurk and rarely post but still keep up with WC). It's at the council's discretion to allow their nomination to stand anyhow.