From dan at thecsl.org Tue Feb 12 11:04:24 2008 From: dan at thecsl.org (Dan MacNeil) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:04:24 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] policy decision: giving up hosting Message-ID: <47B1C388.6010204@thecsl.org> The CSL board is discussing ending our email/web hosting. They will probably make a final decision in March. We want your comments, especially from customers. We'd even buy lunch for commentors who didn't want to take the time to type out their thoughts. Some board members (Fred especially) have had some very useful and thoughtful things to say. Feel free to neglect your children or your day job to say them again or to point out flaws in my reasoning, assumptions or facts below. WHY END? In 2002, to get the services we provide, you'd have to pay $50 per month. These past couple years service equal to ours was available for $10 per month. Now there is at least one group (Dreamhost.com) that in terms of uptime, number of services and timeliness of tech support, is better than we are and (for 501c3) organizations no cost. We don't make enough money from hosting related donations to even pay for equipment. Generously, we'd need 15 times the voluntarily paying customers we have now to pay for equipment and VISTA fees. Hosting takes time from important stuff like improving http://mvhub.com, creating websites (which we don't do at the movement), fixing people's office computer problems or contributing to free software. WHY NOT END WE ARE BETTER IN SOME SMALL WAYS There are a few quirky things we do better. For example we allow people to have 6 Gigabyte email boxes. Sometimes we work directly with register.com to renew people's expired domains, a month before a big festival. UP-SELLING One place where we could become "sustainable" is LAN/Desktop support. In a market where the going rate is $70/hr, we can charge $35/hour and have money left over to do other stuff. The most likely paid support customers are the people we're currently providing service to for free. Starting from scratch, Dreamhost does a better job than we do. However, the hassle of switching providers is unlikely to pre-dispose people to our sales pitch on desktop support. TRAINING AND PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE Five people told me that their sys admin experience with us on hosting got them a market rate job. Not everyone comes to us with the skills to do software development. If we don't do hosting, the population of people who we can provide training and practical experience grows smaller. Unlike the equipment in NPO offices, Hosting is something we control completely. We have separate testing and production environments. We have documented procedures and quality assurance checklists and scripts. Unlike a visit to somebody's office to fix some mysterious failure, the risk of somebody screwing something up in our environment is relatively small. SOMETHING WE CAN TOUCH It is easy to explain "We provide webhosting & email" to funders. Hosting is big, visible and easy to understand. Seeing it, doing it, touching it makes us all feel connected. Talking to somebody in a call center or (worse) working in a call center is not a connected feeling. http:///Habitat.org builds houses inefficiently. The illusion is that mobs of unskilled volunteers build the houses. The reality is that a hiring a backhoe operator is more efficient than buying lunch for 20 people. For every 5 engaged construction volunteers, there is a skilled worker, pre-working the work. The efficient way to build things is to hire a contractor. Of course if you have friends at a church willing to make lunch and don't have cash, doing things inefficiently is better than not doing them. More important, Habitat is not especially concerned with building houses. Habitat's goal is to eliminate poverty housing from the face of the earth. Habitat's sub goal is to make simple decent housing for everyone a matter of conscience. People develop this conscience by putting their hands on boards, working with prospective homeowners and getting sore muscles. Our goal is to create a society where people's status comes from the value of what they give and achieve instead of what they own. Giving away free software and effective technology support is a menas to the end of a gift culture: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ Parallels between us and Habitat may not work the way I claim. Frequently Habitat affilites sub-contract the tricky and lawsuit inducing work like electrical wiring. We may be able to accomplish our goals without our own chip fabrication plant. WHO OWNS THE SOFTWARE SERVICE For a few years now, the computing trend is software as service: http://paulgraham.com/road.html The question is: Who owns the service? It sure would be nice if 100 years ago, the push had been to household size electrical generation. HOSTING ECONOMIES OF SCALE ARE NOT STRUCTURAL Twenty years ago, to run a cell phone, you needed a computer the size of a small house. Thirty years from now, 3 servers will have the CPU power of Google's 3 million CPU server farm. (see footnote) In some industries, like wheat farming it is tough to compete without a few thousand acres of land and the money to rent a 10 million dollar combine. Small time operation that we are, we own about 15 servers right now. In 30 years we could probably afford 3 servers. Given that thousands of people are working hard to create useful free software that we can use, google's edge over us is not as huge as it might appear. The barriers to de-centralized, publicly owned software services can be scaled. MY PERSONAL FEELINGS I'm happy we have a board to make this decision. Given our structure, it isn't my job to make this decision. It is my job to make this decision a difficult one. If it were to me I'd flip a coin or make a decision by not making a decision. "Pick one or pick none"...is a real concern. Given limited resources, better to do one thing well than several things half well. If we don't host, we can focus on http://mvub.com . There are some alteratives to MVHub (211) that aren't nearly as nice. However they are close to good enough and they have a lot more money behind them. There is a danger they will supplant us outside the Merrimack Valley. Ending hosting feels like closing a door. I'm often the one who hangs on past the point of sanity. FOOTNOTES Moore's Law: CPU power doubles every 18 months. 30 years / 18 months = 20 doubling periods CPU power will double 20 times in the next 30 years. 2^20 = 104,8576 3 million / 104,8576 is 2.86 servers From dan at thecsl.org Tue Feb 12 14:24:10 2008 From: dan at thecsl.org (Dan MacNeil) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:24:10 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] [Fwd: Re: policy decision: giving up hosting] Message-ID: <47B1F25A.2050404@thecsl.org> Chris is the guy that brought us /usr/local/sbin/ldapadmin ...among other useful things. Like many competent people his main vices is too much humility and not enough sleep. With permission, I forward his remarks below. I'm going to pause my opinions for at least a week so my thinking doesn't unduly pre-dispose other people's thoughts. ############# -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Cadre-politics] policy decision: giving up hosting Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:51:56 -0500 From: Christopher Sacca To: Dan MacNeil References: <47B1C388.6010204 at thecsl.org> Hey Dan, thought I might give my two cents. I think that the personal service / QoS that the CSL provides is an important and valuable service for NPOs. That being said, I don't think that that means the CSL necessarily needs to physically host it's own services. For instance, if Dreamhost and others are providing good web hosting with high uptime at no costs to 501c3's, perhaps the CSL should not provide physical web hosting. Another option might be management of hosting for NPOs, i.e. you are our costumers and we work with you and Dreamhost you get you setup, we help you manage your website (uploading content, dealing with technical stuff) in a friendly personal manner, but the actual hosting is done by Dreamhost. This would still allow the ability to up-sell desktop support services, while taking away the burden of day to day maintenance of web servers. I think that quality email hosting is a very important service that the CSL provides, however Google Apps for Your Domain, provides GMail, Calendar, Docs, etc. with a 6GB (and growing) mailbox and google's spam filtering all at no cost to 501c3's. Again, perhaps working more in a support role here would be best. Then again, I think the parallels you draw with Habitat are very apt. Perhaps it's not so much about the efficiency of the solution so much as the service provided to the community by operating in and from a community. But still, if we could provide more services, if we could concentrate on MVHub, shouldn't we? So I guess, in the end, I feel that the option of acting more as a proxy for hosting as opposed to doing it in house deserves some strong consideration. However I think that your arguments are very persuasive and perhaps we should consider suboptimal solutions w.r.t. efficiency and concentrate more on providing value to the community. Anyways, this is just my (sleep-deprived) opinion. Feel free to share it if you feel it holds merit. Chris Sacca From michelle at nosi.net Tue Feb 12 19:12:41 2008 From: michelle at nosi.net (Michelle Murrain) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:12:41 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] policy decision: giving up hosting In-Reply-To: <47B1C388.6010204@thecsl.org> References: <47B1C388.6010204@thecsl.org> Message-ID: <47B235F9.6040704@nosi.net> Dan MacNeil wrote: > The CSL board is discussing ending our email/web hosting. They > will probably make a final decision in March. I'm an outsider (and a new list member) but I think I might have some perspective, having actually done hosting myself a while back (from 2001-2004). It's true, if you simply consider hosting TCO/economies of scale, there is no good reason for you to be in this business. There is simply no way you can match what other hosts can do. And the gap will get wider every year, as Amazon and Google start pouring their huge data center resources into the cloud. That said, there is a model you should know about. One I find compelling and interesting, and one that you might even consider. There is a nonprofit organization in NYC called May First/People Link (http://www.mayfirst.org), that is a membership organization. For $200 a year, nonprofit organizations get hosting, and support related to hosting and some other things (like a Drupal install). What they get is basically a community of people who are committed to progressive causes, and work together to provide resources to organizations that need them. From what I understand, the reason the they are in this business is to provide non-corporate connected resources to the progressive movement. Organizations that are members are also similarly committed. They make more revenue by providing consulting services and the like. I'd be happy to connect you to someone there who can talk to you in more detail about what they do, and how and why they do it. Peace, Michelle -- Michelle Murrain Coordinator, Nonprofit Open Source Initiative michelle at nosi.net http://nosi.net From dan at thecsl.org Tue Feb 19 10:20:51 2008 From: dan at thecsl.org (Dan MacNeil) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:20:51 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] $4,000 in Lowell CDBG money Message-ID: <47BAF3D3.6090009@thecsl.org> We asked for 20K for mvhub & 20K for tech apprentices We got 4K for mvhub.com Given that we weren't funded by Parker for the circuit rider/ lan support program that the apprentices would have worked w/, the later isn't such a blow. http://www.lowellma.gov/depts/dpd/services/comdev/consolidated/080219%20Draft%20Award%20List.pdf 20K would have put us within slingshot range of market rate for coders, but 4K is much better than nothing. Some our hard radical core, were talking about appealing if we got zero, I dunno how getting less than we wanted but more than zero effects this movement. Perhaps we (the board) can (briefly) discuss this at the end of tomorrow's 40 minute conference call. From josh.harding at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 09:57:47 2008 From: josh.harding at gmail.com (Josh Harding) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:57:47 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] Primer to Legal Issues for FOSS Message-ID: <55c005b40802200657vbb0af3cg5c873847a8296bf5@mail.gmail.com> Via Slashdot (http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/02/20/0154210.shtml). - "...I would go further. I think any open-source developer or open-source group administrator must read this paper." http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html From mparseghian at majilite.com Wed Feb 20 10:53:08 2008 From: mparseghian at majilite.com (Parseghian, Muriel) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:53:08 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] $4,000 in Lowell CDBG money In-Reply-To: <47BAF3D3.6090009@thecsl.org> References: <47BAF3D3.6090009@thecsl.org> Message-ID: Dan: Given the fact that this was our first application to have received $4K is very good. We can build on that. Congratulations to you for the hard work; especially having to sit there at the public hearing from 6:00 p.m. to about 11:30 in a suitcoat. :-) Mimi -----Original Message----- From: cadre-politics-bounces+mparseghian=majilite.com at lists.thecsl.org [mailto:cadre-politics-bounces+mparseghian=majilite.com at lists.thecsl.org ] On Behalf Of Dan MacNeil Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:21 AM To: cadre-politics at lists.thecsl.org Cc: Dan Toomey; 'Milagro Grullon' Subject: [Cadre-politics] $4,000 in Lowell CDBG money We asked for 20K for mvhub & 20K for tech apprentices We got 4K for mvhub.com Given that we weren't funded by Parker for the circuit rider/ lan support program that the apprentices would have worked w/, the later isn't such a blow. http://www.lowellma.gov/depts/dpd/services/comdev/consolidated/080219%20 Draft%20Award%20List.pdf 20K would have put us within slingshot range of market rate for coders, but 4K is much better than nothing. Some our hard radical core, were talking about appealing if we got zero, I dunno how getting less than we wanted but more than zero effects this movement. Perhaps we (the board) can (briefly) discuss this at the end of tomorrow's 40 minute conference call. _______________________________________________ Cadre-politics mailing list Cadre-politics at lists.thecsl.org http://lists.thecsl.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cadre-politics ################################################################ ATTENTION - The information contained in this message, as well as any attachment, is confidential and/or privileged and intended only for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, return the original message to the sender at the above e-mail address and delete the email and all attachments from your computer system. Thank you ################################################################ From dan at thecsl.org Fri Feb 22 09:37:47 2008 From: dan at thecsl.org (Dan MacNeil) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:37:47 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] booze-up on Friday 03/14 , 7:30pm dublner Message-ID: <47BEDE3B.7030201@thecsl.org> The executive committee is meeting @ (probably) LTC at 246 Market Street at 6:00pm Afterward, (between 7-8), at least me and Josh will go across the street for a beer or 3. You, beloved cadre are welcome to join us. If finances are good, the lab will pick up the tab for nosh and soda. BYOB otherwise. People wishing to designate a donation for volunteer appreciation nosh can do so at: http://thecsl.org/go/donate/ From dan at thecsl.org Fri Feb 22 14:18:50 2008 From: dan at thecsl.org (Dan MacNeil) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:18:50 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] numbers for programmer time In-Reply-To: <42289.68.166.236.225.1203698234.squirrel@login.thecsl.org> References: <42289.68.166.236.225.1203698234.squirrel@login.thecsl.org> Message-ID: <47BF201A.8060200@thecsl.org> Eric Bryant wrote: > > dan I'm not sure where your figures add up to: > > $35/hr figures out to about a 70k per year salary. if we take out 20%, > it's about 60k per year. > > please get back to me immediately about this. as an action item, give me a > salary per year that you are comfortable with to get someone good. I've cadre-politics as our billable rate is a subject of wider interest and wider past discussion. The $35/hr billable rate assumes: 1) 4 weeks of vacation, holiday, sick time, etc per year 2) 30 hours a week doing actual work 3) 10 hours a week going to silly meetings, cleaning the desk, futzing with screen savor reading manuals, etc 4) paycheck of $30K/yr in cash ( pre employee tax) 5) 10K for health insurance & employer share of taxes 6) 20% off the top for overhead (paying me, buying computers, books, paying a fundraising dude(ette), etc) So in rounded figures: $70K = $35/hr * 52 weeks *40 hours per week $64K = $70K - $6000 (4 weeks vacation/sick/etc) $48K = $64K - $16K (10 hrs/wk slack * 48 weeks) $40K = 50K - $10K (overhead) $30K = 40K - 10k (benefits) Thirty thousand per year plus benefits is what various talented people (David Siegal, Josh, etc) have said is what they need to work for us. I suppose you could argue that the effective engineering time (48 weeks a year, 30 hours per week) is too low, but that's about what people (other than me) have been able to consistently put in over the course of a year at the CSL. It is also consistent with the literature. This might be too complicated for the grant. It might be easier and about as acuraete to say we need a salary of 60K (market rate for new CS grad with good grades & references) and overhead of 20% (12K for equipment, supervision, benefits, etc) From fredm at cs.uml.edu Fri Feb 22 15:39:33 2008 From: fredm at cs.uml.edu (Fred G. Martin) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:39:33 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] numbers for programmer time In-Reply-To: <47BF201A.8060200@thecsl.org> References: <42289.68.166.236.225.1203698234.squirrel@login.thecsl.org> <47BF201A.8060200@thecsl.org> Message-ID: <3CAD8C98-20EE-4E5F-AEFB-C35D79F2A396@cs.uml.edu> Quick reaction -- 30 hrs per week of actual engineering time would be an excellent productivity ratio. Fred On Feb 22, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Dan MacNeil wrote: > Eric Bryant wrote: >> >> dan I'm not sure where your figures add up to: >> >> $35/hr figures out to about a 70k per year salary. if we take out >> 20%, >> it's about 60k per year. >> >> please get back to me immediately about this. as an action item, >> give me a >> salary per year that you are comfortable with to get someone good. > > > I've cadre-politics as our billable rate is a subject of wider > interest and wider past discussion. > > The $35/hr billable rate assumes: > > 1) 4 weeks of vacation, holiday, sick time, etc per year > > 2) 30 hours a week doing actual work > > 3) 10 hours a week going to silly meetings, > cleaning the desk, futzing with screen savor > reading manuals, etc > > 4) paycheck of $30K/yr in cash ( pre employee tax) > > 5) 10K for health insurance & employer share of taxes > > 6) 20% off the top for overhead (paying me, > buying computers, books, paying a > fundraising dude(ette), etc) > > So in rounded figures: > > $70K = $35/hr * 52 weeks *40 hours per week > > $64K = $70K - $6000 (4 weeks vacation/sick/etc) > > $48K = $64K - $16K (10 hrs/wk slack * 48 weeks) > > $40K = 50K - $10K (overhead) > > $30K = 40K - 10k (benefits) > > Thirty thousand per year plus benefits is what various talented > people (David Siegal, Josh, etc) have said is what they need to > work for us. > > I suppose you could argue that the effective engineering time (48 > weeks a year, 30 hours per week) is too low, but that's about > what people (other than me) have been able to consistently put in > over the course of a year at the CSL. It is also consistent with > the literature. > > This might be too complicated for the grant. > > It might be easier and about as acuraete to say we need a salary > of 60K (market rate for new CS grad with good grades & > references) and overhead of 20% (12K for equipment, supervision, > benefits, etc) > _______________________________________________ > Cadre-politics mailing list > Cadre-politics at lists.thecsl.org > http://lists.thecsl.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cadre-politics From michelle at nosi.net Fri Feb 22 15:42:48 2008 From: michelle at nosi.net (Michelle Murrain) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:42:48 -0500 Subject: [Cadre-politics] numbers for programmer time In-Reply-To: <3CAD8C98-20EE-4E5F-AEFB-C35D79F2A396@cs.uml.edu> References: <42289.68.166.236.225.1203698234.squirrel@login.thecsl.org> <47BF201A.8060200@thecsl.org> <3CAD8C98-20EE-4E5F-AEFB-C35D79F2A396@cs.uml.edu> Message-ID: <47BF33C8.5000101@nosi.net> Fred G. Martin wrote: > Quick reaction -- 30 hrs per week of actual engineering time would be > an excellent productivity ratio. I think the standard is a 50/50 ratio. Peace, Michelle -- Michelle Murrain Coordinator, Nonprofit Open Source Initiative michelle at nosi.net http://nosi.net