The BFC Computing Weblog

Our friend and sometimes subcontractor Dan Grover had surgery today, and we wish him a speedy recovery.

Dan posted a pre-surgery photo today, and finally it makes sense how he’s so efficient at his work:

All the best, Dan.

I went to a SwANH seminar a few weeks back which was quite good. One thing I didn’t realize was that SwANH was going to give my e-mail address to the event sponsor as part of the deal. I just found this out as I received a product advertisement from them to the address I provided to SwANH.

I understand the need for sponsors, and perhaps ‘to sweeten the pot’, but I might have provided a better address had I known. File under ‘for future reference’.

Jeff Dwyer has published a new book, Web 2.0 Application Development with GWT.

Google Web Toolkit is a development framework which lets you write web applications in Java and have it automagically converted to AJAX/JavaScript/HTML and deployed to all kinds of devices for you. Jeff did a demo of GWT at the September 2006 DLSLUG Meeting.

Jeff is a really smart dude, which he proved to me when he worked as an intern under me at PreviousJob™ where we did some work playing with Catmull-Rom splines for fitting endovascular grafts into abdominal aortic aneurysms. I was able to say, “hey, this looks like a good use for Catmull-Rom splines,” and Jeff could go off and learn all the math and implement it. Good intern! So, Jeff was an easy hire once he was graduated. Any book he’s written is bound to be fantastic.

He’s now the CEO of MyHippocampus.com, which I barely understand. :)

Congrats, Jeff!

Last week I attended and presented at FOSSVT, a conference focused on Open Source in Education. Organized by the National Center for Open Source in Education, FOSSVT, at Lake Morey Resort in Fairlee, VT, was attended by over a hundred educators and technology specialists.

Executive Director Bryant Patten did yeoman’s work organizing the inaugural event, arguably the most successful Open Source event in Northern New England in recent memory. Kudos to Bryant.

I presented “Taking Control of Your Network Using FLOSS Software”, a talk about why it’s important to have a well-regulated network, and a whirlwind tour of a bunch of Free (Libré) Open Source Software (FLOSS) tools that could be useful for educators and technologists looking to take control of a school network. We covered some concepts, troubleshooting techniques, and resources available for further study.

As promised here are the slides . (3.3MB PDF)

Quoting in whole from the ValleyFiber page:

ValleyFiber is a new initiative by ValleyNet to help towns organize themselves to create and use town-wide fiber-optic networks to offer residents, organizations, municipal government, and businesses high-speed Internet, telephone, and television access without burdening taxpayers.

ECFiberNet is the first group of towns that ValleyFiber is working with to implement community-wide fiber-optic networks. ECFiberNet consists of roughly 20 towns in the Upper Valley and east-central area of Vermont who are working with ValleyFiber to approve, fund, and create a fiber-optic network to serve its residents, businesses, and municipal facilities with high-speed Internet, telephone, and television services.

ValleyFiber has created a unique financing model in which the towns do not bond for the infrastructure, but rather fund it out of operating revenues. This is good for the taxpayer and good for those who need Internet service. ECFiberNet appears to be poised for success at Vermont town meetings, receiving a unanimous voice vote of Yes.

New Hampshire is behind the curve, in comparison. It’s very important, if you’re a business owner and would like to see a fiber optic network available to your business, to sign their statement of support indicating that your business would be interested in the project, and that it feels that such a project is important. The statement of support is worded generally, and only cites ECFiberNet as an example, rather than attaching you to a specific network. To sign the statement of support you need only support a fiber project of some kind – these are being collected to indicate to others how much interest there is in the community. If you’re working for a company in the Upper Valley, please get this to your boss and explain the benefits, if you’re in a position to do so.

Additionally, everybody who would buy the service for their homes can pre-register here.

I’ve written before (here, here, here, here, and here) about some of the problems caused by the current Internet situation. I also should have written about it here - good Internet is the only thing holding us back from being the next Silicon Valley, but man just try getting somebody talented to re-locate here and tell them they’ll have to go back to dial-up. Deal Killer.

The first half of that title could apply to so many things, but regarding the Fairpoint proposal, Vermont’s PSB found this:

In rejecting the application, Vermont’s Public Service Board said in a statement that FairPoint failed to demonstrate that the company would be financially sound after completing the transaction… “Significantly, the Board noted that its review did not consider a recent settlement in Maine that had the effect of lowering the purchase price of the merger,” the Vermont Public Service Board said in its statement.

And the article adds this:

The companies settled objections from Maine regulators on December 13 and revised its transaction proposal that lowered the price by about $200 million. The new reworked proposal, has not yet been submitted to Vermont regulators.

So, the Vermont PSB knows about the altered terms of the deal but decided to issue a ruling based on what it knows is inaccurate data? Why would they do such a thing?

Possibilities:

• They were under a deadline
• They can only cast a reject/accept under such a deadline
• There wasn’t a deadline but they wanted to make the news and/or color perceptions
• They’re clueless.

So, the menu as presented is: incompetence, malice, or bureaucracy. What other possibilities are there (I’m asking, not being rhetorical)? What does Hanlon have to say about government?

[Thanks to Steve for the link]

I got this in my e-mail over the weekend:

   
          Dear Verizon New England Inc. Customer,
          
          Pending approval of the Maine, Vermont & New Hampshire public utilities commissions, Verizon has agreed to transfer control of Verizon New England Inc. assets in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire to FairPoint Communications. After the transfer, your new local service provider will be FairPoint Communications. We currently expect that this transfer will occur between January 31 and May 1, 2008.
          
          Beginning December 2007, Verizon will cease providing paper-free billing. It is Verizon’s current understanding that FairPoint Communications will reinstate paper-free billing at a future date.
          
          It has been a pleasure serving you.
          
          Sincerely,
          Verizon
          

Meanwhile, the Valley News seems to be printing the IBEW talking points without analysis and, while paying lip service to the necessity of high speed Internet for regional economic viability, it completely ignores the white elephant in the room which is Verizon’s neglect of New Hampshire’s telco infrastructure and unwillingness to make further investment. They do point out that Vermont has more regulation on the telcos there, but one has to wonder why a New-Hampshire based newspaper would conveniently leave out mention of its own state’s problem.

It looks like ValleyNet is going to do electronics recycling again, this Saturday at the Montshire from 9-12. See their website for more info, and bring a truckload of your old power-eating beasties.

Hat tip: Anne.

UPDATE: I went on Saturday around 11 and there were about 10 cars in line. I had a PowerMac 7300 (XPostFacto just wasn’t cutting it) two keyboards, and an office wastebasket full of miscellaneous circuit boards and parts. $10, which was fair, and the recycler seems dedicated to responsible recycling. They unloaded right from the car, and off we went. The only way it could have been more painless was if the line was a bit shorter. The Prius in front of me nearly ran over the volunteer because he didn’t hear its engine.

I previously wrote some thoughts on the Trustees Decision of 2007, which for those who haven’t read them, it basically boils down to “it sucks, but it won’t last.” But I didn’t specify any mechanisms by which change would be effected.

Since I wrote last I’ve done some more reading on the roles of the Trustees, the Charter, the Alumni Constitution, and who has power and authority over what. I doubt any lawsuits are going to change the current situation - I think the AoA has been mortally wounded. “I’m not Dead Yet!” is only worth something until the undertaker’s club meets its target, but go ahead and prove me wrong on these points, I want to be wrong.

The debate is certainly rancorous and many of the discussion boards have descended into acrimonious anonymous postings, debasing the reputation of all Alumni. I suspect this is a bit of ridicule on the part of those defeated in recent elections and a feeling of helplessness, betrayal even, by those on the other side. Emotions run high and it serves none well.

So, this is here to declare the situation not helpless. Now I do believe it is futile for anonymous posters to whine, “fine, I’m not sending my yearly contribution” online, but the power of the Alumni *is* in those contributions, both large and small. When the question is asked, “what right do Alumni think they have to have a say in how the College is run?” the answer is, “the College couldn’t run without their support.” I can’t exactly say to what degree that’s true - if somebody can tease apart the annual report and find that number, please post a comment.

We can also figure out what percentage of the alumni voted for the ‘insurgent’ candidates but I’m not sure anybody on the outside can tell what percentage of giving that group represents. This would be very handy to know.

So, what choice do they have? Stop giving to the College they love and thus weaken it? Give anyway, and just accept that the Alumni shall have no real control over the College’s destiny? No, as I wrote earlier, the Alumni derive power not just through their contributions (which isn’t remarkably different today than in the past), but through their ability to organize (that’s what’s new and deeply troubling to the status quo). So, this needs to be applied to the cynical version of the Golden Rule.

Alumni Investment Corporation. As of this writing the term has no hits on Google. Maybe it exists by another name - somebody educate me, I am not expert in the ways of educational fundraising, though I’ve never heard of this idea before. But here’s the basic idea: form an investment vehicle for like-minded Alumni to donate funds into in lieu of making donations directly to the College. The corporation would have to have a clear set of principles, by-laws, etc. so contributors know where their money is going. Being an investment vehicle, the investors would be issued shares and thus be able to pull their money out should the governance of the fund go astray. Changes to the fund’s policies would be done though a shareholder vote (stop me if you’ve heard this before) and there’d be nothing to stop competing funds, should they become necessary (though a proliferation of funds would incur weakness to each). The fund would need to be well-managed, so that it grows safely over time, and it would probably have to do the same kinds of fundraising (or smarter) that the College does. It would disperse funds to the College on its own terms, with strings attached. If the College were uncooperative, the fund would instead grow, until such time as the College were willing to accept the money.

There isn’t much here that’s new - there are mutual funds that organize to effect social change - the twist here is a select set of potential contributors and a very specific set of potential beneficiaries. The fund would have to be properly organized to garner a charity status so it would be as attractive a donation target under our Federal Income Tax regime. Obviously, profits from shareholder withdrawals would be taxable.

This arrangement leverages the two powers the Alumni really have and largely ignores the one that has been or can be abrogated from it. It allows the disaffected Alumni to continue to donate to the College, but in a manner they find morally acceptable and fiscally prudent.

Now, I have no idea how to organize this nor the time or expertise to manage it (I’m busy trying to get a startup funded), so somebody take the ball and run with it. I might even donate.

Things change.

Sometimes there’s something you can do do stop it. And sometimes there’s not, but you try anyway.

On Saturday, the Dartmouth Board of Trustees enacted changes to the Dartmouth Constitution, last modified over a century ago, to change the balance of power from 50/50 alumni-voted/administration-appointed to a 33/66 split, in favor of the administration. They fancy to implement a model closer to Harvard’s, which isn’t all that well regarded by folks who aren’t in the habit of appointing trustees. Much more info on what happened and why can be found at Dartblog.

The strategy isn’t even all that creative - Roosevelt tried this in 1939 when the Supreme Court wasn’t voting the way he expected it should, and it’s seen as the most egregious political blunder of his Presidency (quite the curious model to emulate). Just as that move enraged the other three branches of government, this has sparked talk about getting big name law firms involved in the process. It’s even brought ridicule from the non-academic intellectuals - the Wall Street Journal gave the idea a good dressing down. A shame, but this will passs.

What won’t pass is the surge in Alumni participation in governance in the College, and that’s why this article appears on my blog. It’s about the Internet.

10 years ago, Dartmouth offered its alumni (n.b.: this blog is in English, not Latin) a lifetime e-mail account. Then it added some alumni services websites, access to the Library, online voting, social networking, etc. The idea was to keep the Alumni closer to the College. And guess what? It worked.

But rather than just fondly fire up BlitzMail and think, “boy, I think I’ll send those guys $100 today,” they also thought, “where’s that money going … what are these guys up to?” And so they checked in and the majority didn’t like what they saw.

So, they organized websites, campaigns, analysis sites, and decided to set out to change things, in the liberal democratic fashion set out for them in the Constitution.

Now, these alumni didn’t share the same values and plans that the incumbents shared, and they were batting a thousand. The Trustees weren’t used to the Alumni exercising their rights as laid forth in the Constitution. So “something had to be done”. And it was. But it won’t last.

You see, the Internet isn’t going away. The power of Alumni to communicate and collaborate is only going to get stronger over time. They can look in whenever they want, even if they can’t get up to Hanover, or to the U.S., even.

Just as Linux (the poster-boy for all of Open Source Software) appeared just as soon as there was an Internet to support its development, Alumni Governance will come to be seen as an emergent property of Alumni linked together with the ability to easily cooperate. It’s no mystery that all of this happened just as soon as it was feasible - what’s mysterious is that some think they can hold back the sea.