[pianotech] Phil Bondi's answers to our questions about what is being done to correct the problems with the Higher Logic program

[David Andersen]

Beautiful. Thank you, Kent; and thank you, Ron and Laura O. Models of maturity and civilization...great advice.
DA


On Jul 4, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Kent Swafford wrote:

> 
> On Jul 4, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote:
> 
>> Everyone please try to clearly differentiate between the entire HL system and the mailing list portion when you're talking about mailing lists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to underscore Ron's comments here.
> 
> I have also asked that the home office software needs be separated out from the membership's online discussion needs.
> 
> Both the president and vice president have responded to me (although without the specifics that we so crave), but I suspect the board needs their upcoming meeting to hash things out before the council session and our pianotech live meeting.
> 
> An excerpt from the post I sent to the new (pretend) pianotech follows:
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Kent Swafford <noreply at egroups.ptg.org>
> Date: June 30, 2011 10:50:26 AM CDT
> To: Kent Swafford <kswafford at gmail.com>
> Subject: [PTG Pianotech]: Pianotech Live meeting during convention
> Reply-To: ptg_pianotechne at egroups.ptg.org
> 
> Hi Mr. President.
> ...
> The longstanding arrangement that provided servers, software, and the expertise to run both servers and software to host ptg.org was fairly described over the years as "the deal of the century" for PTG. There is no doubt we became a bit spoiled by the high quality and vanishingly low cost of this arrangement. We always knew that such an arrangement could not last forever.
> 
> I am speaking here of Andy Rudoff; his contribution to PTG simply cannot be overstated. PTG will forever be in his debt. But Andy decided to move on. Good for him. I hope he knows how much his work meant to PTG.
> 
> It may not be generally known by the PTG membership that Andy's need to move on is one of the underlying reasons why PTG needed to explore options with regard to its hosting of online discussions.
> 
> But now to my question. I understand the need to consolidate the office software to handle member data, financials, the online store, etc., but why are the online discussions always included in that list? Why cannot online discussions be handled separately?
> 
> I have observed that it is a matter of some frustration on pianotech that when members ask about online discussions the reply invariably mentions the software needs of our office. The connection is surely an artificial one. The fact that the staff found a software package that happened to nominally include provision for online discussions is not sufficient reason to bind the office needs with the online discussion needs.
> 
> Given that our online costs were so small for so long, we knew the time would come when we would start having to pay market rates. So, have options been sufficiently explored?
> 
> Did Andy deliver recommendations about how to best proceed without him?
> 
> I understand that the old online discussion server is being kept running for the moment by a member volunteer. Have we explored continuing the arrangement, either on a volunteer basis, or on a for-pay basis?
> 
> If ever there was something worth paying for, PTG's online discussions are worth paying for, perhaps so even if we have to go into the open market to hire a pro admin. This is clearly one thing that members are happy to be paying their dues to provide!
> 
> 
> Kent Swafford
>