Do you think we should incorporate ALFA ?

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:17 am

International ramifications: I don't know to be honest.

Board removal: This is usually spelled out in the Bylaws. Normally, once elected, a board member serves until their term is up (1 year, 2 years or 3 years) and then has to stand for re-election. The only usual way to get someone off the board earlier is to have the board remove them, and the Bylaws usually provide for the mechanism. For example, at San Francisco Pride, the Bylaws provide that a majority vote of the Board of Directors may remove another Board member. To add further safeguards, we adopted a more complex rule in our Policies & Procedures manual that calls for a formal inquiry, etc. But in the end, it comes down to a majority vote from the board - so if a majority of the board members vote to remove, the person is removed. In my time on boards (3 years on one, two on another) I've only done this once, and it was an extraordinary situation. Only the most venerable board members (ie one who had served 12 years) could remember another such removal. In short, removals are possible but rare. Generally, once you elect a board member, you let them go for their term and hopefully you picked a good one - and more often than not, you have. And even when you have not - the structure of a board generally compensates - the good folk tend to pick up the slack for the not-as-good folk.

indio · Post by **indio** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:32 am

The stuff of revelation.

I'm a dissenting voice not about the idea, but about your approach to it. And as your very last sentence in your very last post reveals, such concern is more than justified.

If it's going to be easier for you to have this idea play out without my input, by all means remove me. But until then...You're making big claims about what is and isn't possible, about what we have and have't got, and what will and won't work, and I'm just not seeing anywhere near the justifications and research that such claims require from the IA.

Now you may be getting pats on the back from all the right people about this idea, but like most old reptiles, cold blooded and grizzled, I'm just not being filled with that happy feeling juice you're selling. And the simple reason is because you have failed to convince me, from a technical standpoint, that this idea will do either of your implied objectives:

1. Raise sufficient funds
2. Host multiple servers

We've got fewer than 100 active members (possibly as few as 50). Does that factor in to how much money can conceivably be raised? What alternatives need to be considered when we raise $1000 instead? I can't see how these alternatives can't be considered.

My alternatives are:

- Do some fund-raising...it's about time we did
- Forget anything more than $2000...we'll be luck to raise half that
- Use the money to *hire*, not buy, a host where we can run centralised forum, irc, database, wiki, vault etc...
- Spend your time and energy working with existing teams who are building NWN2 mods to get them ready, using your expertise where it's doing some good

All this talk of 'refusing to let this turn into ALFA1' seems to be overlooking that we did what we could. Not all of it was perfect, and a lot of it was less than good. But throwing money at a problem, anywhere you look, never solves a problem. Centralising things will help to some extent, but the notion that we can afford to buy a server that then hosts all of us at the same time seems increasingly lofty.

edit: Alara keeps forcing me to correct my typos.

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:39 am

Just FYI, one of my best friends in the world (and a member of my PnP group for over 20 years) owns and operates a webhosting company - it IS possible to hire someone to provide the servers and bandwidth and such - but naturally, not for free. Its just another alternative - but of course, "ALFA" cannot contract with this person, or any other person, unless and until ALFA becomes a legal entity. Until then, we can only contract individually (ie I could enter into a contract with my friend, but then, the contract is between him and I, not him and ALFA).

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:56 am

The problem isnt hosting forums/website. Thats easy to do because it requires very little in way of resources.

NWN2 on the other hand, requires alot of resources. Thats just a fact no matter how you look at it.

Judging from everything you have posted so far, you dont appear to have the level of knowledge necessary to be a judge of wether this is possible or not. With 5 years of experience with this as my dayjob, i feel on the other hand that I do. You may be a decent builder, but i doubt you have alot of experience hosting large servers, or working with any machine that is more than a personal computer. We dont need your input on what you think based on no real knowledge other than hosting a bunch of nwn2 modules on a PC. This isnt meant to be derogatory in any way. If i say something about law for example, and Mik explains to me that i am wrong or lack the understanding to even have an opinion about it, i will not accuse her of beeing derogatory towards me, I would instead trust that she knows what shes talking about. Given the tone of your posts though, you do seem more concerned with making me look bad then you do furthering the discussion and reaching a solution that is better than our current one.

This really is all the time im going to spend explaining the situation to you Indio.

Like ive said a few times now; obviously nobody is going to spend alot of money on something we dont know will work as intended. You seem to be the only person so far to not fully realize that.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:58 am

As soon as you start advertising you're goin to start invoking questions about the EULA. Besides, I would find advertising to be exceptionally distasteful.

I think the line from central hosting to disembodied ownership (which is what incorporation is) is actually pretty clear. An investment of the magnitude under consideration almost demands incorporation. I also don't think the incoproration would be tremendously burdensome administratively, we've actually gotten quite used to "rule of the law" here and I think can transit to full legal status.

Keep in mind though that such a solution is still putting all our eggs in one basket. Incorporation removes a certain risk related to personal behavior, but does nothing for other risks centralization brings on. I think the problems with the distributed model were primarily due to the software people used, and that can be addressed without centralization of hardware. However, if WD went down that didn't affect the other servers or the vault. With all our eggs in one basket though, its likely that any problem will bring the whole thing down. Doesn't matter for the vault either way, which favors neither solution as far as the vault is concerned.

Also keep in mind that the benefits of centralization do not require actual hardware ownership. Rental is just as good, and doesn't require incorporation. Just cutting down on admin turnover (and thus account names) is all that's necessary to make that an economical alternative.

My job as an economist is not to tell people what to choose. Its simply to add more trade-offs to the choices they face

AcadiusLost · Post by **AcadiusLost** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:06 am

Let's cool down a bit on this- I think everyone is interested in getting our mods hosted reliably and in a more professional manner for NWN2 than we did for NWN1.

Currently, we've got a missmatch of windows and linux machines, some hosted by a thirdparty company (dungeonserver)- some of the hosting machines are not dedicated, some aren't on intenet connections that are reliable or provide enough bandwidth to handle high player numbers.

Largely, we accept this because something is better than nothing. I think we can all agree that we'd like to see it better handled for NWN2- dissagreement comes on the "hows" of this.

Right now we simply don't have the tools to test how ALFA-module sized, fully active mods, running with NWNx4 integration will perform- even on their own, much less in multiples on a multicore server. The Beta teams who are integrating their areas and trying to test them are our frontline in this- they are the ones in the trenches, getting daily feedback on how things are going. To dismiss them offhand would be a grave mistake at this point. Conceivably, each team has a plan for hosting- it was a part of each of the applications that went into their approval- much was tenative at the time, but there should be hosters listed on each active proposal who can be approached about their intentions and where they stand for now. Technology gets cheaper with time, I know some teams may be waiting to get more machine for their money, as a full, dedicated hosting rig isn't a good investment yet if it's going to lie fallow for 6 months before a working Beta2 mod is ready to go.

If we decide we can and should go centralized down the line, those same mods being developed now can be hosted centrally- I don't think anyone is saying "pay or be dropped" or anything absurd like that.

But for now, everyone who is getting worked up over this needs to take a step back and breathe before posting, as it's getting unneccessarily confrontational. This is just an idea being explored at this point.

indio · Post by **indio** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:07 am

Zic, if I was trying to make you look bad, I'd just post your photograph.

It doesn't matter if you do or don't consider my opinion. If you believe you can do this, great. Two concerns remain:

- Can you raise the money
- Can one computer host multiple NWN2 modules

It just doesn't take 5 years on the job training to see that your approach to this idea is obscuring practicality.

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:09 am

Valid arguments fluff and mik. I did consider what is called dedicated server (eg, you pay a monthly fee to have full control of a single server). This is however very expensive, and most of the companies that offer it, usually offer fairly low end machines. So we would end up paying 7 times a monthly fee of say $100 to host 7 modules (just using the usual number 7 as reference). We would also have to sign a binding contract (for atleast a year) to get that price.

DS (Dungeonserver) does not work like this. What you get on DS is whats usually known as a virtual server (or zone). These are just one big server split into alot of smaller ones that APPEAR to be dedicated to the user. All virtual server accounts on a server share that servers resources. This is how they get away with charging $40 /mo, and also the reason why hosting NWN2 there would not be possible, or atleast more expensive.

If we were able to get 7 people along to pay $100 each every month, then we allready have a much better solution as long as those all sit on the same LAN at the same serverfarm. However, in the long run (+10months) it stops beeing a good idea economically.

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:12 am

indio wrote:Zic, if I was trying to make you look bad, I'd just post your photograph.

It doesn't matter if you do or don't consider my opinion. If you believe you can do this, great. Two concerns remain:

- Can you raise the money
- Can one computer host multiple NWN2 modules

It just doesn't take 5 years on the job training to see that your approach to this idea is obscuring practicality.

We allready hosted 2 modules at the same time on 1 computer!
If you skipped every part I and others have said about that, then I actually understand all your posts completely. If you thaught I didnt allready know that is 100% possible, then i would obviously be pretty stupid to bring all this up.

Also, my pictures are awesome, and you all know it

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:19 am

Good point AL, bad idea to buy something before we need it.

One obvious idea though, would be to host all the nwn1 modules on such a machine while the nwn2 modules are getting ready.

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:25 am

The technical side really isn't a problem. The server is a single threaded application, meaning it uses a single processor. A single computer with eight processors or eight computers with one processor--it's essentially the same thing if we're running single-threaded applications. The RAM can be assigned and all operates independently anyway. The only bottleneck would be the hard drive, but the database is the only thing that would be using it on a regular basis, so that's not a problem.

I'm not necessarily saying this is a good idea--the "all our eggs in one basket" angle is a legitimate concern, along with the legalities and the finances and whatnot--but the technical issue should be way down the list. Multi-core processors aren't some magical box that causes everything to break, it's just multiple CPUs in a single package.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:06 am

This poll is failing, for the simple reason it was presented with outrageous goals, no clear indication of how much it would cost to setup the incorporation, and no clear idea of 'how' the incorporation is to be setup.

I can honestly say that, having setup two 'profit' incorporations and assisted in setting up a non-profit organization, it's not a simple thing, nor is it without a financial expense. Other things to consider:

Shares - Each incorporated has shares, with a default of 1000 shares to be distributed among the officers, or among investors. So, who gets the shares?

Private Information - All officers, for insurance purposes, needs to have no criminal record, which means that all officers (assuming they are admins), will need to provide detailed personal information to the 'manager' of said incorporation. It is assumed that all officers includes all admins, although it is possible to setup something else. Anyway, this merely adds yet one more reason why some people would not wish to be an admin.

Credit Ratings - If, at any time, the incorporation wishes to obtain a loan, although the incorporation is considered an entity in and of itself, the officers are representative, and poor credit ratings among the officers will directly impact any loan obtainment and interest. As well, any loan obtained will need to be paid. As this organization has no viable means of income, a loan is just not going to happen without utilizing the officers' credit.

No Actual Protection - Incorporations (Inc) do not provide protection from lawsuits, nor does it protect individuals within the Inc. A lawsuit can be presented against the Inc, all officers, and members, with absolutely little additional effort. In fact, if the Inc were to be sued, it is required, by law, that an attorney represent said Inc. This means 'more' money, lest one of the attorneys in ALFA 'volunteers' their services should such an event occur (yet one more dependency).

The Inc, non profit or otherwise, is required to 'maintain' and report their income/expenses annually, for each Country in which this Inc is filed.

An Inc must be registered in 'every' nation it is associated with. This may, or may not, require full application... i'm not sure, since i've only assisted with overseas registration on a very limited level. However, it does cost, and it does require paperwork, and it does require 'annual' reporting.

Every year, an incorporated business or non-profit org needs to refile, and this costs money (on or about $500 a year, last i checked... and that's 'just' for the U.S.). This means, with the creation of an incorporation, the first $500+ in donations will be paid out to 'maintain' the Inc, rather than applied directly to the needs of this community.

These are just 'some' of the things not being presented. I, personally, like the idea of incorporation, but let's be honest, we're an 'international' organization, with officers from multiple countries. The laws in the U.S. are pretty clear about these issues, and enforcement is rather diligent at the moment, especially with all the friggin' paranoia.

If this poll is to be presented again, it should detail 'every' issue, not just the favorable ones, or the imaginary ones. Be realistic in your presentation.

I vote no... for now.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:07 am

I wish to present one more thing. We are not dealing with our 'own' material, but the materials presented by other companies. By incorporating, non-profit or otherwise, we subject ourselves to greater scrutiny by Bioware, Obsidian, WotC, and other companies. We're 'borrowing' their stuff. Also, the title of "A Land Far Away" was penned by Ed Greenwood. That we would have the 'audacity' to incorporate what he penned, could backfire and he could end up suing for ownership. As well as i know, and granted, i'm not an attorney... but i believe he would win.

Mik already indicated she will correct my assumptions, so take what i present here with a grain of salt for now.

indio · Post by **indio** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:20 am

zicada wrote:We allready hosted 2 modules at the same time on 1 computer!

Conclusions like will no doubt be comforting when spending $7000.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:17 am

Umm, these two threads are bleeding all over each other, lol. Hard to keep track of which.

Anyway, part of the expense to obviously consider, is the bandwidth. A grand and expensive computer does not take into account the expense associated with maintaining a huge bandwidth. Even if a computer can maintain 7 (or 20) modules, the bandwidth will be limited to the connection that, in and of itself, will need to be payed out to a 3rd party.

Have you considered this in your schemes?

You know what? I keep bumping into the way things have been done in ALFA over the past 5+ years. People have been utilizing their 'existing' connections, or utilizing services provided by their employers, through the companies they own, through their university's services, or whatever they could get away with... all at little to no additional expense. So, what you propose, over the existing system, is a dependency on a single blob of hardware, with a dependency on a single 'massive bandwidth' net connection, all with a monthly payout that requires an additional dependency of 'regular' community donations totalling... however much, not yet disclosed or determined. Am i correct?

An additional question. Who gets to keep this blob of hardware? Do we have some company maintain it, etc? Do we pay them for this? Is this an additional expense? Or do we park it in the home of one of our members? Oi, i hope not.