ST's Future Discussion

[Steve Miller]

To address Tim's options, I feel a hybrid of the three are of best service to the members here.
I'm not at all interested in replacing volunteer staff and Tim certainly has a place at the helm. From a business standpoint I would treat this as a not-for-profit in that we are maintaining a place for users to create content that benefits others at no charge to them but maintain a business structure that is self sustaining; again for the benefit of those who are users of the site. Note, I'm not at all interested in a 501(c)3 status, just making a comparison to non-profit structure.

As for the domain and content, there has to be a leader and for a leader to be truly in charge, leverage is required. Leverage in this case is ownership of the domain (at an appropriate wholesale rate), the final say in the structure, and day to day operation of the site. Content here belongs to the members and is not a commodity. In my opinion, admins should have access to the database for management and back-up but not to take content elsewhere.

 

[Marcus Diaz]

That main issue was Tim's absence when we needed him. Or when we needed to get some improvements done, and had to wait a while. I think Tim could remain sole owner of the site, IF he hands total control to someone else. Otherwise we'll be back at square one.

 

[Shane Adams]

That said, some options here are:

1. Keep me as site owner & forum administrator and add other administrators to expand the leadership and share the administrative & technical work (i.e. any administrator can work on the site, reboot it, or modify rules).

2. We designate a new forum administrator, I continue as website owner in a background capacity (I don't set rules or moderate), and have the ability to take over again in case there are problems later down the road with the new leadership that impacts the site negatively.

3. Transfer everything (website ownership and forum administration) to the new candidate wholesale.

I outlined this because #3 is basically a "brand new day" option and is the simplest option for everyone, but it will introduce a lot of unknowns. Website transfers are not reversible and there will be no turning back from the new road Stormtrack will follow. Frankly I am fine with whatever you all prefer, and I am willing to continue serving in some sort of background capacity if there is the feeling that it needs to be done for the good of the site. If not, that's totally fine with me; I will be able to focus more on my business and I will likely still participate on Stormtrack from time to time as a regular user. What's best for the site is ultimately what's important.

Ultimately, regardless of vote or whatever, you're the owner. This decision is yours to make. I'm for whatever happens. I don't have a preference or "wish" for how this thing goes down. As a user, as long as the forum remains, I'm happy. Each of the three above outlines would correct the #1 glaring issue that's held this place back the past few years, so IMO, any of the three would be an improvement. Lastly, I have to admit, I'm feeling a bit of nostalgia/regret when I see Tim contemplating stepping out altogether. If that's his desire, then so be it. But I hate to think there's a part of him that doesn't want to give up ownership but is willing to for the "greater good."

I'm glad this isn't my decision to make.

 

[Jason Boggs]

I just want to openly apologize to Tim and the rest of the group for the statement I made about Tim falling off the face of the earth. He hasn't been around much, but I wouldn't either if I had priorities of family and other things going on in my life. Sometimes we stick our foot in our mouth, and I did just that. Tim, I apologize to you and anyone who may have taken offense to my statement. Thanks!

 

[Jeff Duda]

My vote:

3. Transfer everything (website ownership and forum administration) to the new candidate wholesale.

At this point I think the most valuable aspect of this site is the archive. As long as the integrity of the archives aren't compromised, I don't see any reason not to go with a clean slate. I don't think any of the options is going to dramatically increase the popularity/usage of this site anytime soon, if at all. Seeing the activity level in this thread and the site in general die off after an active week or two when people got scared after the site went down shows me that this site is dead in its current form. You can keep defibrilating it, but I see no need to try to keep feeding it life support medicine that will only keep it alive, but not animated.

 

[Shane Adams]

My vote:


At this point I think the most valuable aspect of this site is the archive. As long as the integrity of the archives aren't compromised, I don't see any reason not to go with a clean slate. I don't think any of the options is going to dramatically increase the popularity/usage of this site anytime soon, if at all. Seeing the activity level in this thread and the site in general die off after an active week or two when people got scared after the site went down shows me that this site is dead in its current form. You can keep defibrilating it, but I see no need to try to keep feeding it life support medicine that will only keep it alive, but not animated.

^^^^ Winner winner chicken dinner ^^^

 

[Adam Lucio]

As long as the site is around, I will pop in from time to time. I've always been a medium user whos participation fluctuates, but has remained fairly constant for the time Ive been a member. Whatever option you (Tim) feels works best is fine with me. Same goes for those more invested in this project than me. I trust you all will make the right call, even if it ends up being to wave the white flag.

 

[Mark Blue]

From a business standpoint I would treat this as a not-for-profit in that we are maintaining a place for users to create content that benefits others at no charge to them but maintain a business structure that is self sustaining; again for the benefit of those who are users of the site. Note, I'm not at all interested in a 501(c)3 status, just making a comparison to non-profit structure.

I appreciate the fact that you've put so much thought into a solid business plan moving forward Steve, with the key words being self sustaining.​ I believe the words business and monetization have scared a few members into thinking they'll have to open their wallets to maintain membership, but that's not at all what it means. If ST can get to a point where a certain segment of the membership doesn't have to donate on a regular basis to keep the lights on, we will have made substantial headway. Once all of that is ironed out and working, then content is king and participation is everything.

Another item worth commenting on is ownership, control, and leverage. In theory it sounds good to have an owner who gives control to someone else or a team of individuals, then fades into the background without any concerns for the health of their commodity. In practice it rarely happens because ownership and control go hand in hand, and without one ​key person calling the shots it's destined to become a cluster at some point in time. Thanks for thus far laying out the most sensible and well thought out plan for the future of ST.

 

[Marcus Diaz]

Just going to mention this here. I'm currently working hard to create a Stormtrack podcast. I've got a lot of ideas on paper the last couple nights. Today I'm going to buy a webcam for my PC and start tinkering with different programs. If you would like to help me and become involved or have interest in participating, please PM me. I want this podcast to stand out from the rest of them out there and make it enjoyable to watch rather than just droll on and on about my opinions. I think we can use this to get some traffic back to the site, as well as give people a place to lay down their thoughts and hear great stories from veterans.

 

[John Farley]

I personally think that new ownership is the way things need to go, since Tim's current situation does not seem to allow him to put the level of effort into Stormtrack that he has in the past. As others have said, who owns the site is ultimately who controls what happens with it. I do appreciate Tim's efforts over the years, but given the situation, I think new ownership would be the best way to go.

As to the subject of podcasts, I think it is fine to have a podcast as an additional feature of Stormtrack, but I would hate to see that replace Stormtrack. The strength of this group is that any member can post whenever they can/wish to, and then that becomes part of a permanent archive that can be found by subject, date, etc. You lose all that with a podcast, and often I find when I watch them that I have to sit through a lot of material that does not interest me. For this reason, it is important to me to keep the group going, with improvements, and if there is to be a podcast, it should be an additional feature, not a replacement for the group.

 

[Marcus Diaz]

John my intentions with the podcast are not to replace Stormtrack. It's merely an additional feature to create some new chatter every couple weeks or so. I definitely want to tie it directly to the site. And like I said, members can guest star or cohosts if they want to. I'm thinking about having 3 or 4 topics each show, with each topic reaching to a different audience. 1 segment for veteran chasers and chasing ideas, another for the beginners of the hobby, and something the average Joe can enjoy. I don't want to keep it technical all the time. And I definitely want to hear great stories from everyone. Rob H suggested he can do a segment on photo processing. We could have someone else do some tech talk that helps out for chasers. These are all ideas for now, but hopefully by next month we can get a show up and running.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Thanks, I appreciate the suggestions. After a night to sleep on this and and a day of thinking about it, I'm thinking in terms of a more balanced transition: I will keep the domain and stay on board as an administrator, but I will hand control of the forum over to someone else. We will have a new "Stormtrack chief", and they will be an administrator with authority to set the rules and decide on a direction for the site. There will be 3 or 4 other people who also have administrative powers (including being able to reboot the board, install mods, SSH into the site and modify files, notify the server farm of problems, and so on), but we all will take direction from the Stormtrack chief and I will be one of those who abide by their decisions. I will assist with technical responsibilities such as backing up the site. I am pretty certain this is a better option than me just abandoning the board and leaving it as somebody else's problem. I will serve in an advisory capacity and as domain owner I also will be on reserve to "pull the plug" in case 9-12 months down the road the transition sours and users are getting upset with how the board is being run and there are overwhelming calls to start the site with new leadership. We will effectively be instituting a system of checks & balances.

Jeff -- not sure if we are actually dead.. I'm looking at activity below and I see 142 logged-in users active during the past 10 minutes. This is a lot of traffic. I double-checked the cookies settings and it says 600 seconds, so this does appear to be the case... we're getting good traffic but just no participation. It seems like people are just stopping by to read messages, maybe as part of their evening route, just to consume the content but not really get involved. I'm not sure what it will take to get them to post, but it may be as simple as one of us starting a new discussion on a daily basis. And this is in early December, our doldrums. This is really good to see, and I really think we should perhaps give the board the benefit of the doubt until the measures above don't work out, then we can figure out what needs to be done.

I am also open to ideas on how to hammer out the financial aspects of the site. This is where the new chief will have some say. Our expenses are not very much, in the mid-hundreds of dollars per year, and I'm not sure a 501(c)(3) corp is pratical, but funding was enough of an issue to cause some issues back in November with us having gone 2 years without a donation drive and 1 year with no new ads, and me trying to get back onto my feet 3 weeks into a divorce. I can perhaps be responsible for our basic hosting costs, and the new ST chief can figure out how to make sure that money flows in to meet hosting costs, and either supplement it if it doesn't come in or decide what to do with a surplus if we get one.

Tim

 

[Rob H]

I have opinions on almost everything, but I actually have useful opinions on technology platforms and expenses. I welcome our chief, whomever it may be, to pick my brain if they so desire

 

[Steve Miller]

After a night to sleep on this and and a day of thinking about it, I'm thinking in terms of a more balanced transition: I will keep the domain and stay on board as an administrator, but I will hand control of the forum over to someone else. We will have a new "Stormtrack chief", and they will be an administrator with authority to set the rules and decide on a direction for the site. There will be 3 or 4 other people who also have administrative powers (including being able to reboot the board, install mods, SSH into the site and modify files, notify the server farm of problems, and so on), but we all will take direction from the Stormtrack chief and I will be one of those who abide by their decisions.

I am also open to ideas on how to hammer out the financial aspects of the site. This is where the new chief will have some say. Our expenses are not very much, in the mid-hundreds of dollars per year, and I'm not sure a 501(c)(3) corp is pratical, but funding was enough of an issue to cause some issues back in November with us having gone 2 years without a donation drive and 1 year with no new ads, and me trying to get back onto my feet 3 weeks into a divorce. I can perhaps be responsible for our basic hosting costs, and the new ST chief can figure out how to make sure that money flows in to meet hosting costs, and either supplement it if it doesn't come in or decide what to do with a surplus if we get one.

Tim

This significantly changes the initial conversation. For anyone to be interested in applying the time, effort, and capital to this website that it deserves, they will need the keys to it. This includes the associated domain. I'm all for continuity at the top and would not change much there, but the idea that someone else controls the most important piece of the puzzle while others toil away is not going to work from a motivation or financial standpoint.

As for expenses, if the site is hosted in the cloud in order to scale properly, the costs will be higher than mid-hundreds. Add on pay-for modules, VB updates and a higher-end chat area, among other things I'm interested in, and you have a few thousand in cash outlay per year. And yes, a 501(c)3 corp is not at all practical but structuring the business model like one is. An LLC is a necessity though moving forward. Liability is something everyone deals with now and even community-oriented websites are at risk.

I'll reiterate that I'm more than happy to entertain a wholesale price for the domain.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Jeff -- not sure if we are actually dead.. I'm looking at activity below and I see 142 logged-in users active during the past 10 minutes. This is a lot of traffic. I double-checked the cookies settings and it says 600 seconds, so this does appear to be the case... we're getting good traffic but just no participation. It seems like people are just stopping by to read messages, maybe as part of their evening route, just to consume the content but not really get involved. I'm not sure what it will take to get them to post, but it may be as simple as one of us starting a new discussion on a daily basis. And this is in early December, our doldrums. This is really good to see, and I really think we should perhaps give the board the benefit of the doubt until the measures above don't work out, then we can figure out what needs to be done.

There's participation, and then there's participation. Sure, seeing people actually logged in is good, but if only a tiny fraction of these people is contributing by posting, then I think my original statement is still valid. Sure, the site is "alive", but more often than not it seems alive like a comatose person is alive.

I'm not blaming anyone in particular. I'm just describing the way I see it. Since I joined in 2008 I've probably averaged one site visit per day, so I've gotten a pretty steady sample of the activity levels of this forum.