On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:34:32 GMT, Johan Plane <johan.plane@telia.com>
wrote:

>Well, i started with classic in summer of '99, and I do remember the bad
>times also. However, the longer the project as a whole is going on the
>tougher demands Berkeley will have to meet. What I find disturbing is that
>even though the transition from classic to BOINC was done over a
>substantial time, the architecture of the new system wasn't made better
>from scratch. Knowing the problems with classic, one would have hoped that
>they had learned the lessons and designed a system with a high grade of
>redundancy, instead of starting to plan for that now when the system is in
>full use. That is a slip that I guess would only be tolerated in academical
>environments and any other ad hoc governed businesses. Technical strategy
>is the keyword missing. The fact that there are many dedicated volounteers
>ready to join the choire singing praise contributes to keep the pressure
>off their backs. There are those claiming that, since it's volountary, we
>cannot ask for or demand anything, just shut up and crunch. I disagree on
>that. If I give the science my computertime it's their obligation to
>provide me with work. There is no better way to loose enthusiastic
>coworkers than to treat them negligent. It would be interesting to know how
>many active contributers there really are as opposed to the numbers that
>have registred over time, i.e. how many have abandoned the project over
>time. Any commercial institution would survey that issue, but I guess that
>it's not interesting facts to Berkeley.
>
These are the stats from www.boincsynergy.com
Total credit granted:    4,487,652,295 cobblestones
Total Recent Avg Credit: 18,699,412 cobblestones
Seems to me quite a few of us are still crunching.
And I do disagree with you when you say it is "their obligation to
provide me with work". I believe it is "their obligation" to do what
is right for the Science, not what is right for us users. Sometimes
the two coincide, sometimes they diverge. In the case of hardware,
they diverge because of money constraints. Believe me when I tell you
Berkelely would LOVE to have as much money as they want!!! Wouldn't we
all! But that is not a possibility, so they make do with what they
have and try and have a plan that has a future with the users and the
Science BOTH being happy. Money can do that MOST! They NEED donations,
personally I think they do it wrong, but it is not my call. I think
they should put the word out that all donations would go towards x
piece of hardware, those that think that piece of hardware is valuable
would donate, those that don't won't. Then move on to the next piece
of hardware. I am sure they do this already, they just don't tell the
users what they are actually buying. And yes I understand that those
on dial-up probably can't afford to buy a new modem on Berkeley's end,
while those of us on cable can afford a new router with no problem.
Those darn total numbers of people in each group keep getting in the
way.

Well, then we can agree that we disagree.
I'm not a user I'm a contributor by means of computer time, electricity bills, hardware and transfer costs. You and I are giving them quite a lot very cheep. So this science project is comparably cheap. So its volountary, but that doesn't mean they can treat their contributors as they please in my opinion.
It's the same approach as I have to any volountary work. It's volountary to be for instance a boardmember in a charity organization. But the moment you accept to be on that board it becomes an obligation to do your very best for that sake and the volountary part is gone! You have accepted a task and you fulfill it to the best of your ability.
And for me it's the same thing with SETI. They presented the project so that I felt compelled to enter this project. Now it's their obligation to see to it that I can fulfill my commitment. But obviously they don't know CRM, which, when I come to think of it, is perhaps the trademark of scientists. To much IQ at the expense of EQ. The importance of keeping members/contributors happy has not been addressed with enough care inn my opinion.
I can though agree on your fundraising thoughts. Donating towards a goal is much easier than towards some undefined black hole.

/ Johan Plane
Uppsala, Sweden