Hey Chuck (and gang)-- It's obvious to me that a number of months ago when Ben and I pitched this project to the TC-WUG group, noone ever explained the underlaying ideas on the mailing list. So, for those who don't show at the meetings it's easy to get lost. (See: me.) So -- would someone like to summarlize the base idea and goals of where the project started? Perhaps Ben? Perhaps Steve? I apologise for leaving the list-readers (e.g. myself) out in the cold when we began the project. It must be mighty confusing (See: Chuck) for people who are reading the project activities half way into the project. Again, my sincerest apologies for all the confusion. Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- President, Gopher Amateur Radio Club at The University of Minnesota > Thanks for your lengthy reply. That clarifies much, but also indicates > the exact problems I was trying to inquire about. I, and probably most > in TCWUG, still have no idea what "availability" we will get, if any or > anything. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu [mailto:mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu] >> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:51 PM > >> > I don't think we're "5x9" yet: you don't seem to understand >> > "requirements" or "qualifications" for a multi-site community net as >> TCWUG folk have described it: > >> When Ben and I approached the group, TC-WUG didn't know what >> they wanted to do either. (Perhaps this is still the case?) Some >> members argued for >> hot sport deployment. Others wanted free internet access, and >> didn't care >> how they got it. Others wanted to setup a backbone. Finally, Ben and I >> wanted to see TC-WUG doing something real, rather then just >> blathering on >> an internet email list. =) > > Given the directional chaos in TCWUG, you and Ben have done a truly > excellent job. > > However.. > >> So, here we are. Ben has done some great work in pushing this project >> through both the ham and TC-WUG clubs. Perhaps I need to re-state the >> goal(s) here: >> >> 1. The ham club wants to use this as a promotional tool. > > Noble goal, but not a TCWUG goal. > >> We thought that by >> partnering with >> the TC-WUG we could give TC-WUG a project to do. > > TCWUG is not able to "partner" yet, and I don't think the HAM club has > presented a written partnership proposal to deal with ownership, > bandwidth control, and voting issues. > >> This is a >> _direction_ to >> head in for TC-WUG, and not the only thing that TC-WUG can be >> doing. (I >> hope that there are plenty of other projects going on in >> TC-WUG land right >> now!) > > I doubt that TCWUG has any project you don't see here, so yours is it > for now. > >> The ham club only has one goal in mind: To recruit >> students to our >> club. > > Making HAMS probably is not a goal for TCWUG folk. > >> If students want to join TC-WUG, that's awesome too. By >> joining both >> clubs together we can create an awesome project for both to do. > > Problem: TCWUGs who are not UMN folk probably can't join that HAM group > or have any say so in it, however. > >> 2. The original goal of the project was to do point-to-point >> linking from >> Moos Tower. The idea was to have coverage in the various >> communities on >> the east bank campus: Dinkeytown, Stadium Village and the Superblock >> areas. This way, students who live off-campus can join the >> ham club and >> use the wireless bridge. > > Where would that leave TCWUG folk in competing for bandwidth utilization > and allocation? Doesn't sound like a winner for TCWUG. > > Joining is required for use? How would TCWUG folk "join" something? > Note: the Alumni Association (UMAA) no longer permits non-UMN members as > "friends of the U" as they once did, and some may not have graduated yet > either. > > >> While Ben and I work out the technical and legal details of the >> equipment, > the goal may change, but the original goal >> stays the same. > > I'd bet there's LOTS more than just legalities of equipment in order to > connect and share the UMN data and net access you mentioned. Not real > clear that you and Ben are looking at enough of the issues in your goals > yet. > > >> 3. We wanted to give TC-WUG a direction to head in. It seemed >> to me that >> in recent months (April 2002 - July 2002) the TC-WUG mailing >> list turned >> into an "email etiquette" course more then a wireless >> discussion group. We >> wanted to excite the minds of the bright people on the list >> that are into >> wireless and RF technologies. > > Again a noble goal, but providing a means for students to access the > campus isn't a link bandwidth utilization objective for TCWUGs who can't > use it at all. > > FYI, I quit the UMAA internet ISP service last year after many years > because of the poor bandwidth availability that actual members got. > >> > a) The UMN HAM club has done QSL cards and field days for a >> long time, >> but probably has never allowed non-members a voice.. >> Huh? Those seem like fighting words there, Chuck. > > Think first: My original words were more complete and clear: the HAM > club hasn't yet begun to permit actual non-UMN-member participation, and > hasn't yet begun to own and manage off-site equipment, so the HAM club > has less relevant history for a community WiFi project than TCWUG does. > My point was that QSLs and such are probably the only elements of > history that the HAM club has that go back to 1919 or whenever. Your 2 > meter repeater stuff doesn't go that far, your transistor usage doesn't > go that far, and WiFi doesn't go that far. The HAM club hasn't begun > the things I'd expect to be necessary for a real project with TCWUG yet. > Using TCWUG excitement and volunteers to get a UMN student facility may > not be the best TCWUG partnership, but may be entertaining for some for > now. > >> Correct, this is the first time that the ham club has setup an 802.11b >> wireless network of any kind. But it's not the first time that we have >> experimented with new digital modes. > > Understood: HAM clubs always experiment. My comment was directed at > LONG TERM installations off-campus, not short-term experimental ones and > not the on-campus ones. > >> We actively >> work with the Minnesota Repeater Council, another ham group >> in town and a >> favorite part of the hobby for me. > > THAT's what TCWUG should develop partnership with! That's what the > Gopher Club can help with! WiFi that the MRC could support fully is > what TCWUG would be interested in.. . That probably would require HAM > licensing for some aspects of participation in an MRC WiFi net, but I > doubt that MRC would be doing much that only UMN students could use. > >> Many of our members are >> involved with >> other ham clubs... > > Good! That's where the GARC role as TCWUG partner can be most > productive, IMHO. Available bandwidth on Moos would be nice too! > >> So -- we _do_ have experience working with other groups and >> have had a lot >> of fun working on projects and volunteering for activities >> with and for >> other people. > > I'm sure of that, but.. Nothing written, nothing permanent for > OFF-CAMPUS = near or at zero for that kind of thing. > > . "Could [we] be open to a peer-level TC-WUG >> partnership and >> Wi-Fi"? I believe *we* approached *you*. As a matter of fact, I *know* >> that *we* approached *you* since I was there pitching this to >> the group >> with Ben a few months ago. > > No: I heard words and see more words written, but have yet to see the > Gopher Club actually write or DO something that amounts to sharing > equipment and bandwidth in a real way with TCWUG. What you outline > seems like GARC holding out its hand for donations from us and for GARC > purposes alone: GARC hasn't put in writing yet just what TCWUG might get > by donating time and equipment to GARC. > >> > d) the UMN HAM club alumni and board doesn't seem to have TCWUG's >> interests as top priorities... only a few people there do. > >> Huh? I didn't know that the Gopher Amateur Radio Club had a "board". >> Perhaps this is something I'll have to chat with the rest of the gang >> about. You'd think I would know about a "board" being the >> president of the >> Gopher Amateur Radio Club. =) > > If GARC is a real non-profit thing, it has legal and other > accountabilities to UMN and to the state of MN and to IRS. Otherwise, > it's wholly owned by UMN, and under UMN insurance, etc. In either case, > there's an official governing body and reporting of annual finances > under some set of laws. As Pres, you should know when or how (or > whether) GARC is legal. How to make a long-term agreement would be > described in those top-level and next level legal papers (Articles of > Inc and ByLaws - or equiv). > >> >> Since you have elevated yourself to be the email spokesperson >> for TC-WUG... > > Speaking out of curiosity and constructive intent ONLY. Knowledgeable > but NOT "elevating". > The web site needs some FAQs or equiv. I would help with that if asked > by the leaders. > >> what exactly _are_ the "TC-WUG's interests"? > > No idea. Only looking to see what's visible here, whatever it may be. > If it becomes a real group with a stated mission, I might be interested > or might not. Depends on what the mission may be. So far it's just a > rag-tag online technical forum and that's OK. We should recognize when > or whether or how it becomes more. > > >> If the only interests are "I >> want free internet access" I think you are hanging out with the wrong >> group. =) > > We're no more sure what kind of access or availability that hanging out > with GARC will get for non-members either :-) > > >> "Clearly presented" must mean that Chuck wants something in writing. >> Perhaps we can discuss "writing things down" at the next >> TC-WUG meeting, >> if everyone really wants to get all-formal-like-that-and-stuff. > > > Right in the following sense :-) > > A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. > -Samuel > Goldwyn > > (note that GARC may not be legally able to execute written agreements > with off-campus groups!) > > Regards, and thanks much for helping to clarify! This clarifying effort > should help GARC also. > What you and Ben want to do may not be legally possible for GARC to do > with any TCWUG access. > > Chuck