Should the [H]orde transition projects?

[KWH]

KWH, it seems to me that you have many opinions on the subjects of what [H] and F@H should do. You shared your thoughts on the matter amply in another thread as well.
The part that confuses me is that you do not F@H since the ATI -fermi flag thing, and you don't DC of any kind for the Horde.
Around the area I am from, a person who is overly vocal about matters that do not concern themselves is known as a shit stirrer. Kindly leave your personal attacks at the ATI GPU User team's forum rather than over here.

Seems you should spread your wealth of insight around to others and take your own advice as well. Hypocrite often?
FYI, I do other projects for [H]. Not that I need to answer to you. So much for your insights.

 

[amdgamer]

ok... so I'm not going to vote since I have very little invested into the program as of this point, but should the [H]orde decide to move, I will as well. The only thing that I'm running into is that I can't find an individual BOINC project relating to medicine that currently supports both AMD/ATI and Nvidia GPUs unless WCG does.

For now, I think I'll fold on and see what happens

Don't brush yourself off like this, because you guys are the backbone of our team. This is a team where everyone is just as important whether you fold 400ppd or 400k ppd. The average production of a team #33 member was around 5000-6000 ppd, and that means that there are a LOT of folders on this team that are making their contributions as they are able.

 

[Nathan_P]

I agree with a lot of the suggestions made so far, but let me throw a couple more ideas out there for possible inclusion. A few of these may overlap, so please excuse me if it has already been noted by another member.

1) Projects that work and are deemed successful usually benefit for a well organized, collaborative effort from all members of the project. Certainly, there are leaders and people in positions of authority who have the final say so, but it would do wonders for this whole situation if people like them (i.e. FF mods and Stanford Academics) actually listened to and learned from the suggestions and contributions issued from some of our more elite members out here in the wild. If the people who volunteer their time and energy know that their voices were heard and make a difference in how this project was run, then you would likely get a lot more satisfied people participating.

2) Implement reasonable response times to problems. Not just actualy WU issues like bad packets and broken servers, but controversial issues like the "Cherry Picking" situation that was recently identified. While were at it, lets be a little more consistant in the enforcement of rules, regulations or guidelines. No more of this half-assed "we think thats okay but not this" type of enforcement. If a new situation arises that has never been faced before, resolve it quickly and quit letting the community flouder about arguing about it amongst themselves. It divides the valuable members who are dedicated to this project.

3) Provide a well written project description page that doesn't sit idle for months or years without content. If I'm folding and want to know more about what this data will mean to the scientific community, then I should have a place to find it. Not only does this help me individually, but if I want to bring more people into the project and they want to know what it is we do, then I have a valuable resource to point them to that will hopefully make them want to contrbute as well. Crunching data is only part of this being successful. If you *really* want it to go somewhere, do a little PR work and make people want to help you.

4) Get rid of this "Ultra Secret" NDA bullcrap, and quit punishing people for doing a little PR work. As others have mentioned before, Tobit never divulged any information that was critical to the security or secrecy of the project. If anything, he was developing more interest in what was coming down the pipe and how it would benefit science. He was generating more interest and going out of his way to promote the entire F@H project, as opposed to other people out there who sit on their freaking throne and pretend to be better than the rest of us because they're higher up the chain in the project. In case nobody has ever mentioned it to them in the past, maybe they need to keep in mind that they wouldn't be getting *any* results if it weren't for teams / individuals like us down here crunching the data.

5) Finally....Take members from each of the top 10 teams out there and create some kind of "F@H Project Board" as an interface between the Academics who run this project and the average person out there who spends their hard earned money supporting this project, and everything it stands for. Too many of us are out here yearning for more information, clearer guidelines and quicker resolutions to the issues that this project is facing and it just isn't happening. This Project Board could act as a focal point, or a conduit where probelms could get passed up and answers could come down, and things would actually get done. I know these guys at the top have thier hands full and don't have time to address the average person's problems, but the whole Folding Forum and the leadership within are a farce at best and doesn't solve much without beating their chests and proclaiming their superior intellect over everyone else. I want to see some regular people like us in a position where the common person gets represented, thus maximizing the whole collaborative concept. Teamwork is a real simple concept, and *everyone* needs to remember that teamwork involves *all* of us, not just the ones at the top...

Sorry for the length of this post. Feel free to carry on now...

Ax

Ax, I like these points - they further expand on what i suggested earlier and bring a couple of others into play - Especially the one about solving problems in a reasonable time frame.

 

[may i be worthy]

I was preety peeved a while back about FAH, and drafted this open letter - I never posted it as it is just a rambling first draft, it is a bit out of date but you can see where I was going with it. I had the same idea as Ax - a advisory board.

Lets not ask to fix specifics. Lets ask to get an FAH Donor Advisory board up and running which can best oversee the process. Teach a man to fish...

_____________________________

Dear PG,

I am pretty new to folding - only a few months - but perhaps first impressions can count for something. FAH to me looks like a program that needs a fresh approach in certain areas, particularly to do with donor issues.

Why is there not some sort of FAH advisory body made up of donors?

This surely must have been suggested before in 10 years - if not - why not?

This project is built on the donation of computer time. Why not tap the vast potential for volunteer human time? It seems to me there is a passionate base of dedicated folders that is an untapped resource. Nobody would say the needs of the donors should be higher than the needs of science. But without donors, no science would get done. They have to be co-equal.

Currently the donor community feels taken for granted.

To give you an telling example of the sort of thing that happens when you have a concentration of power to a small overworked team - The 6701 project does not even a project description on the website. "This Folding@Home project is new! Stay tuned for more details." Every mention of 6701 on various folding forums is of donors cursing their luck to have got one, not donors understanding that they are helping to solve... what exactly?

This tells me you have scientists who are overworked, while you have potentially unlimited donor time untapped. Why take scientists aways from science when there are hundreds of volunteers that could deal with some of the housekeeping aspects?

Get a small committee together - maybe even use the infrastructure there already, and get the top teams to elect representatives, and/or call upon the beta testing community.

This body would:

• help enormously with the two-way communication issues
• a happier donor base is a healthier donor base, with more growth potential
• organise crowd sourcing the labour need to fix issues that are low on the priority list of PG, but high in the list for donors.
• eliminate accusations of ivory towers/not listening to the donor base!

The issues of communication, points and benchmarking are the areas I see that could most benefit from this committee.

Even just sorting two relatively trivial issues within CPU folding- the gulf in points between the 670X units and the rest of SMP, and the difference between 2684 and 2685/2686/2692 - would solve 70% of the the complaints that I see.

Beyond that, the bigadv project is having some unintended consequences, and the points system needs to be addressed in the longer term. For example, as I write this, I (DigitalFX) just posted 627,000 points today. Ranking 6th in the world for all donors. As pleasing as that is personally, this was done with 3 computers! I do not kid myself that todays contribution of 5 of my work units should equal half the points of all the Playstations! (~5000 work units)

The points system needs work. No matter what is done at this point there will be winners and losers - all the more reason to let the community help decide the least worst solutions

This advisory body must be independent of, possibly even elected by the donor community. It is clear that the Folding Forums have fallen far short of being the vehicle for this - they are dominated by some unpleasant and domineering self elected "gatekeepers" who create a very hostile environment - not at all a place where solutions can be worked out together.

-- Somewhat obsolete bigadv whinge paragraph - but they were working on new bigadv back then - but who knew?!! --

Running bigadv lately is I think a glorious tour through the current problems of FAH.

Run bigadv
not much bigadv - get A3 Standard work unit - 2/3 the points... ok fine
more often get 6701, 1/3 the points, not so fine.
can't return completed 6701, server down
nights production lost waiting on server = 0/3 the points!

--

Why not use the power of points to effect outcomes? If points = science value were true, then points need to change over time to reflect scientific need. Points are the currency of the project. They should be treated more on the principles of economics - supply and demand, floating exchange rates... There are huge numbers of uniprocessor work units being ignored? Forgive my small business thinking here - but you need to have a sale!. Make the points competitive with other clients and watch them go out the door!

It is pretty clear the current benchmarking system has failed. Why on earth are one or two machine designated as a benchmarking system? Why not use that as a starting point, then adjust points once data comes in from the community to reflect the average of real world folders. (PG is swimming in real world data of how long it takes units to run!) Problem units like 6701 and 2684 would be brought into line with peers. Dumping units would drop off dramatically. Clients that need higher attention, get short term boosts in points.

Such points tuning is not a priority of a scientist - but it would be exactly the thing a FAH Donor Advisory board could organise and carry out. Open. Transparent. Consensus. Minimal IT requirement on PG to implement.

As I said, I am new and I know these issues are complex, but when I see my output above 300,000 points one day, then 120,000 the next (same power cost), and a lot of old timers quitting, perhaps a fresh approach is needed to take the project into its second decade.

PG needs to draw on the resources of the folding community.

 

[jebo_4jc]

You might be on to something MIBW.

Boiling our "demands" down to a single request for an opportunity to have our voices heard through representation on an advisory board is appealing for the sake of simplicity.

It would probably also be simple enough that we could gain support from other teams if we spread the word to other forums.

 

[Tobit]

Although I don't think anyone has approached PG with the idea of setting up an "advisory board", PG is already aware of many of the issues MIBW states.

 

[SazanEyes]

I agree completely with the advisory board suggestion.

Although I don't think anyone has approached PG with the idea of setting up an "advisory board", PG is already aware of many of the issues MIBW states.

The problem is not a lack of awareness, the problem is a lack of communication between PG and folders. They also know we want an ATI client, but what is being done about it? It seems like the lack of time for VP to address every issue personally, combined with the unreasonable desire for secrecy by some involved with the project, has created the situation we're in now.

 

[jebo_4jc]

Let's call it a "Donor Board".

The goals are for representatives of all donors to be able to have their voice heard regarding problems and suggestions.

Also, the members of the board will be able to transmit a clear message from PG to all donors regarding upcoming changes, current issues, as well as scientific progress made using specific FAH projects.

I'm liking this idea more and more.

One problem is logistics. How exactly will these "donor board" meetings be held? Teleconference? Message board? Online chat?

 

[fury]

This is a complex set of issues that would be tough for any organization to handle, let alone one with as much legacy on its shoulders as Folding. Each of the biggest problems people have is likely to have a different solution depending on whom you ask. Any two of those people you ask could be polar opposites on the issue, yet roughly equal contributors. So who gets to be "right?" And who matters more to the project, the new folks just discovering this for the first time, who are buying up rigs especially to max out their points, or the long timers who've been there from day one?

The same could be said for any such advisory board. If it's selected out of various teams' top 10s, then you will get people who have thousands and thousands of dollars of hardware running this stuff. Their choices may not necessarily reflect what keeps the joe schmoes ticking, nor the preferences of their boxen-herding peers who were simply passed up for board seats.

If it's selected at random, you'll get lots of people who may have a Core 2 Duo or two in their folding gardens, and then there's a strong bias toward a drastic change in the points system which pisses off the people who throw the most hardware or the most expensive hardware at it.

If it's held like some sort of election, where people from each of the top N teams elect representatives, then you get a decent mix of that, and probably the best compromise in decisions (or at least advice) going forward, but obviously this one is the most difficult to accomplish, logistically.

In any case, I don't mind either choice too strongly, but to me, it sounds like the time has come, where tensions are at that point where it is less about the science and more about the pride -- not necessarily over stats, but project management and whatnot, where we have lots of people with lots of time invested that are tired enough of being snuffed that they would take their resources elsewhere regardless of the project's worth, just to avoid the frustration (in other words, are we thinking too much about how to manage the project and not enough about whether it's worth the blood sweat and tears it'd take to manage the project?). At such a point, it would be prudent to look into another project. Not necessarily just because of the politics, but to make a difference in some other aspect of science for a change. Folding will soldier on for science whether or not we or an assload of teams take off, because there are still thousands and thousands of Joe Schmoes who don't even pay attention to the politics and are just doing something for the sake of the science.

It may reinvigorate the troops to have a fresh start in something. A new project that doesn't get quite as much press as Folding, but is equally noble. Where the active crunchers have a new ladder to climb, which may or may not motivate them more than seeing 50,000 inactive names with months worth of points in front of them still, as they fire up their new 6-core monsters.

tl;dr: I'm good either way, but I think we're thinking about it too much and should just move on.

 

[rick5127]

I think some of you under estimate how much this project means to Vijay Pande. But realize he is trying to run an imense system and that he can't just stop all the duties he has to look at one aspect. Give him a chance, he may take some time got this all sorted out but he is a reasonable man and as evidenced by his reply to tobit I think he is contemplating what to do next. Just realize this is a very big project he is in the middle of and he will need some time to get to everything.

Oh and before someone notices it, I do not fold for you guys. I come here from another team because I respect the information you folks put out and enjoy reading your posts and such. Hope you don't mind me chiming in.

 

[Tobit]

As some of you know, I've been in communication with Vijay Pande recently regarding my recent dismissal from the beta team along with ideas for the future of the beta team. I also took the liberty to lay some groundwork for the idea of an advisory board. Below is my last email, in its entirety, to Vijay:

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Vijay Pande <[email protected]> wrote:
> By the way, in the end, do you feel there were any grounds for Bruce's concerns?

Unfortunately, I am not really sure why Bruce took the action he did so it is hard for me to say. In Bruce's PM all he said was "It's a shame the [H] can't respect the privacy of the beta team". I suspect
it was because of the new 6800 and 6811 work units. I had simply let my team know that higher atom count work units were coming and not to expect to see the high performance they were accustomed to. Several team members had purchased upwards of 14 low-end cards, each, for folding and I kind of felt obligated. The only other recent incident was when p6900 was released. Quite a few teammates were very excited and one expressed that they had seen 2689 on psummary and it had a much higher k-factor than other bigadv units and wanted my input, I declined but I did tease them a little bit by saying "*whistles innocently whilst glancing over at his 3.5GHz 920 very pleased with the PPD*".

Does Bruce have grounds? Sure. I will not play the innocent victim. I could have handled the p2689 incident a bit more professionally. However, p6800 and p6811 were major game changers for many on our team. I have no regrets for giving them an early warning and I'd probably do it again. If you want the respective thread URLs from our forum for you to review, let me know.

I am fine with the beta team the way it is. However, Bruce and Co. need to not keep such a tight leash either. The beta team can be secretive but it doesn't need to be classified to the highest level. Hell, there are many on the beta team now who shouldn't be members.

Several of my team members are thinking about approaching you with the idea of setting up a "F@H Advisory Board" comprised of donors from various teams where it'd be easier to communicate the ideas and concerns of those of us who have a high dollar amount, via hardware, invested in F@H. Think of it as kind of an in-between of PG and the FF. I don't know if you'd be open to such an idea or not but it is currently under discussion on our forums.


Respectfully,


- JT Croteau (Tobit)

 

[APOLLO]

As some of you know, I've been in communication with Vijay Pande recently regarding my recent dismissal from the beta team along with ideas for the future of the beta team. I also took the liberty to lay some groundwork for the idea of an advisory board. Below is my last email, in its entirety, to Vijay:

I am fine with the beta team the way it is. However, Bruce and Co. need to not keep such a tight leash either. The beta team can be secretive but it doesn't need to be classified to the highest level. Hell, there are many on the beta team now who shouldn't be members.

And therein lies the crux of the matter at hand - the perceived need for secrecy. What is the FF concerned/afraid of? Corporate espionage?? They're not a manufacturer or software publisher. This is a charitable, humanitarian endeavor, or at least that is what PG has led everyone who participates to believe. If we were involved in a security-related field or a profitable enterprise, all the supposed rational behind the beta-testing NDA would then be justified. It begs the question 'what are we really working on,' and demands a reply to appease all the recent vexation against project policy that has surfaced.

It stands to good reason that PG would benefit from being aboveboard concerning unreleased work. The case of the GTS 450 is an excellent example many here and elsewhere can personally relate. In my case, I came very close to purchasing this card and some even acquired a whole fleet. Advanced knowledge of hardware requirements for impending new work is invaluable to the participants AND to project management. PG desires just as much as its constituents the best hardware to be utilized for the work they have made available. It is in their best interest to propagate advanced knowledge of imminent changes to specific areas of the project. They are as addicted if not more than the participants to the accelerated progress of the research - they thrive on it.

I demanded an explanation from anyone in the know about the different K-factor for the bonus of unreleased -bigadv WUs. I believe it is in our EVERY RIGHT to know why it was re-evaluated. PG should look around closely; people are blowing enough money on hardware they could have used against a new vehicle - it is freaking insane. We have a need to know and therefore should be privy to as much advanced knowledge about unreleased work as possible with the understanding said information cannot possibly hurt anyone or injure any entity.

 

[Tobit]

And therein lies the crux of the matter at hand - the perceived need for secrecy. What is the FF concerned/afraid of?

I'd just like to say on that, that FF is the one who wants air-tight secrecy. PG would like to open it a bit more. There is no doubt that the beta team needs control, we don't want/need 10K newbie folders rolling with the beta testers, but it doesn't need to be CIA-level classified either.

 

[Tobit]

What is the FF concerned/afraid of?

Apollo, the major discontent I have with the beta team right now is that there are many who are very lazy or lack the competency necessary to be on the beta team. For the past three months, I can count on two hands the number of folks who have contributed to the beta forums. There is one person who has been posting lately who can't even comprehend how to deleted an outdated core exe so the client can download a new one.

The beta program is fine the way it is if A) FF admins weren't the control freaks they are and B) would weed out some of the losers. Not much really has to change.

 

[APOLLO]

Apollo, the major discontent I have with the beta team right now is that there are many who are very lazy or lack the competency necessary to be on the beta team.

The beta program is fine the way it is if A) FF admins weren't the control freaks they are and B) would weed out some of the losers. Not much really has to change.

I can only conclude from this troubling scenario is the failure of those responsible for recruitment, or the inadequacy of the program itself. Not enough passion and zeal on one end, and way too much on another. Complacency always sets in and takes root with any administration that has outlived its usefulness. As a history buff, I can state examples from the past both distant and recent. Some kind of 'revolution' is needed to restructure things and maybe this advisory board that some have raised here as a solution might be the cure for the disease. OTOH, it is my understanding that the FF was created for this reason among others. CMIIW.

 

[zero2dash]

I'd just like to say on that, that FF is the one who wants air-tight secrecy. PG would like to open it a bit more. There is no doubt that the beta team needs control, we don't want/need 10K newbie folders rolling with the beta testers, but it doesn't need to be CIA-level classified either.

Wow....I would have never expected this level of lunacy.
So basically in a nutshell, the FF mods are trying to play God for the project and go over Vijay's head?

That's like telling other parents how they should raise their kids; that shit don't fly.

 

[Tobit]

Some kind of 'revolution' is needed to restructure things and maybe this advisory board that some have raised here as a solution might be the cure for the disease.

Well,, thankfully Vijay is open to ideas and listening to me at the moment.

 

[Axdrenalin]

Oh and before someone notices it, I do not fold for you guys. I come here from another team because I respect the information you folks put out and enjoy reading your posts and such. Hope you don't mind me chiming in.

Rick, you're more than welcome to drop by and contribute any time. The front door is always open to fellow folders, regardless of what team they're crunching data for...

 

[nwrtarget]

Wow....I would have never expected this level of lunacy.
So basically in a nutshell, the FF mods are trying to play God for the project and go over Vijay's head?

That's like telling other parents how they should raise their kids; that shit don't fly.

Or better yet having the kids tell their parents how to raise them!

This seems to be working out in a way that yields positive results. The management is listening to the Sergeant's of the folding world again and as we all know that is a good thing.

Middle management is often a waste of oxygen.

 

[FLECOM]

Oh and before someone notices it, I do not fold for you guys. I come here from another team because I respect the information you folks put out and enjoy reading your posts and such. Hope you don't mind me chiming in.

everyone is welcome here

 

[Tobit]

Vijay appears to be quite responsive to the idea of an "F@H Advisory Board" and had always assumed FF would be the basis for this but seems to think this isn't working anymore.

Vijay is wondering who, from our team, you'd be willing to represent for such a committee? He'd like to see myself and Xilikon on such a committee given our previous relationship with him. He's also looking for ideas for members from other teams as well.

Vijay's most recent PM to me is as follows. Let's not try to overwhelm him with a bunch of PM's, lets try and coordinate all replies to him via myself and/or Xilikon for now please.

A F@H advisory board is an interesting idea. At the moment, the Mods more or less comprise that, especially since they come from different teams and we have had a good long term working relationship with them. However, I agree that more input is useful (esp if the Mods are the problem), within the balance that not everything is possible.

Do you have any suggestions for members? Stef (Xilikon) is someone who I've worked well with in the past and so perhaps he (or you) may be the natural member from your team? Any suggestions from other teams on specifics (and how many people should be on)? I'm jumping to specifics in part since I think this could work well if we got the right group of people, but could crash and burn if we didn't.

 

[Nightbird]

Sounds great Tobit. If the F@H advisory board can simply focus on getting bonus points right, and otherwise drop information here and there, everything will be greased back up.

 

[jebo_4jc]

I doubt anybody here would dispute either you or Xilikon as our team's rep.

I think it would be hard for us to decide between the two. Perhaps that is something you should work out among each other.

Here is the top 10 rank. I think either Parja or Punchy would be good nominations from EVGA, and I know toTOW is on the Francophone team, but I dont know any other teams well enough.

1 folding@evga
2 [H]ardOCP
3 Maximum PC Magazine
4 www.overclockers.com
5 Overclock.net
6 TSC! Russia
7 Overclockers Australia
8 Custom PC & bit-tech
9 Alliance Francophone
10 Team MacOS X

 

[Tobit]

I think it would be hard for us to decide between the two. Perhaps that is something you should work out among each other.

It really doesn't have to be limited to one person either, two persons would be fine as well. You just don't want to flood the situation with too many people.

 

[Tobit]

My most recent communication to Vijay:

Xilikon and myself would both be willing participants from our team. I'd also be willing to check around the other teams for their input/volunteers as well. If Bruce is willing, a private forum on FF could be created for this purpose. If not, I am sure other arrangements could be made as well.

Meanwhile, I've made my peace with Bruce and I am now back on the beta team.

 

[SazanEyes]

I agree that choosing board members from current beta testers is a good plan.

Part of the "mission" should not just be to bring concerns to PG, but also to disseminate information to folders at large and eliminate some of the secrecy. Therefore I think the board should be fairly large (like maybe 20 people). It sounds like there are not that many active beta testers, so additional people could be chosen based on team leadership (mod at a large team's folding forum) or established folding history (AtlasFolder for example, if he's not a beta tester already).

 

[dmolter]

I love the idea of an advisory board but I believe that the people representing the folding community should come from both the large teams such as us, evga etc but also have representatives of smaller user and production base to make sure all bases are covered and all concerns are heard.

 

[may i be worthy]

The management is listening to the Sergeant's of the folding world again and as we all know that is a good thing.

Middle management is often a waste of oxygen.

QFT - I think of it as PG sets goals, community tweaks points sytem to achieve those goals. At the end of the day points are far more valuable to donors than to PG - it makes sense for a advisory board to deal with that stuff, not waste scientists time.

I doubt anybody here would dispute either you or Xilikon as our team's rep. ..SNIP. I think either Parja or Punchy would be good nominations from EVGA....SNIP

Seconded.

It really doesn't have to be limited to one person either, two persons would be fine as well. You just don't want to flood the situation with too many people.

Yes, at this point just getting the concept up will work wonders I think, and to start with people Vijay has a working relationship and trusts with makes a lot of sense.

So much can be done by simply taking some housekeeping things off the plate of PG - a major goal should be to take some load off them to help the project scale. Right now they are addicted to doing most things themselves - 'making your own clothes'.

Baby steps. Get away from the gatekeepers of FF, start the process with short term achievable objectives, evolve into something that can grow to manage the bigger problems.
I am not at all sold on the idea of this being run on the FF boards - unless it can be completely away from the power of the mods & hangers on who are part of the problem.

Very glad you are back Tobit - it would be a big loss.

I love the idea of an advisory board but I believe that the people representing the folding community should come from both the large teams such as us, evga etc but also have representatives of smaller user and production base to make sure all bases are covered and all concerns are heard.

Could not agree more, but choosing the right people to start with I think will be sufficient.

The last thing we need is an unweildy uber-committee. I can't think of a mechanism to keep things democratic - so gatekeepers and power hungry nutters can be sacked - without getting too tied up in rules and regulations.

I say the first order of business for the board is to get cracking on open communication, roadmaps and points, then secondly open up the process over time to make sure the board is representative.

Last note on beta testing - why not keep a somewhat confidential inner sanctum like now, but have a next step of an -openbeta flag to get a lot wider input before setting points in stone. Have a minimum qualification of x points etc.

 

[Tobit]

Last note on beta testing - why not keep a somewhat confidential inner sanctum like now, but have a next step of an -openbeta flag to get a lot wider input before setting points in stone. Have a minimum qualification of x points etc.

Respectfully, without pressing more FF buttons, I used to have this with a few members. However, with the advent of p6800 and 6811, I took a more public stance because of the impact to several of our members who had just purchased upwards of 12 or more 450's and then the problems arose.

 

[gkanakis]

I think every team should nom or elect there own people.
If we say, as team 33, that one person or another should be a good rep from a team we are going to run into a problem.
Not to say a team name, but I can hear it now "Why does [H] get to choise who represents us?"
Just a thought.

 

[Tobit]

I think every team should nom or elect there own people.

Agreed. I would approach each team asking "who do you choose to represent the advisory board?" and let them decide.

 

[nimbyfaygo]

Very interesting thread; that I've somehow managed to overlook.

From an outside perspective, it would seem that an advisory board is ideal. I'm imagining something quite similar in function to a student body council.

The one concern I have is the effectiveness of a board, what issues are to be addressed, to whom, and will any actual changes be implemented. For example the Bonus points structure. Will it even be probable that a system wide change be made, even if many people have ideas that could be more "agreeable to everyone" than the system currently in place.

I don't have any useful input on this matter, as I'm new to the whole idea of distributed computing. I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in anyway since this is headed in a good direction.

 

[Axdrenalin]

While I'm more of a person to observe as things happen around the DC forums, I am *very* glad to see that something like this is staring to materialize. Nice to know that there are people on all levels of the project who are willing to work together and consider some suggestions from average users.

I'd also like to express my approval with Xilicon and Tobit being the Team 33 members to participate in this potential Advisory Board. I think that it's only fitting when you consider just how much each of you two guys have contributed to the project.

I noticed also where Bruce had posted a public apology to Tobit in the "Done with Folding" thread, and thought that was a very noble thing to do. Hopefully this will be the start of a huge turn around with PR, publicity and collaboration in the entire F@H Project (long overdue, at that).

Carry on, and let's continue to move forward with a positive attitude!

 

[may i be worthy]

This is turning into a fabulous week for FAH. Raining bigadv, fences mended, positive steps to improve the program...

 

[Tobit]

This is turning into a fabulous week for FAH. Raining bigadv, fences mended, positive steps to improve the program...

You can thank me all later by voting me for HDCOTY.

 

[amdgamer]

I'm glad that things are working out for all of us as I have to say that moral is definately getting better. As MiBW said, i'm glad that fences are being mended and that the PG is listening to the concerns of our members. Now lets go and do what we love doing, which is FOLDING and finding a way to come back and kick eVGA's ass

 

[sirmonkey1985]

im all for having a board with the top 10 or so teams. hell could be more as long as said team has a forum for their members to use. will definitely clean up the FF. and give a direct line to vijay and the PG team.

 

[SazanEyes]

Good stuff.

The one concern I have is the effectiveness of a board, what issues are to be addressed, to whom, and will any actual changes be implemented. For example the Bonus points structure.

I would hope the advisory board wouldn't just be an organized bitch session, but would offer constructive criticism to PG. I don't want the board to just tell PG "people are complaining about the bonus system" and then tell the folding community "PG is aware of complaints about the bonus system and will try to figure something out." I think that's basically where we are now. Instead, the board could hash out ways to improve the bonus system on their own, suggest the best methods to PG, and maybe help implement them if possible. Also, since PG has limited resources, the board could vote on which tasks to prioritize (ATI client vs. Linux bigadv vs. improving existing clients, for example). I think there are a lot of functions the board could take on to provide a little more structure than the open-ended complaints that show up on FF and team forums.

 

[rick5127]

Thank you all for your generous invite. That is one of the reasons I am here.

Looks like VJ has just found out what is going on in his ranks. And a nice apology from Bruce in another thread impressed me.

 

[Xilikon]

I'm glad my email to Vijay after hearing about Tobit's demise got things rolling and issues solved

About the advisory board, I'm flattered to get a lot of support for nominating me in the board but let me suggest a more democratic way : make a thread asking for proposal then make a voting process to pick the 2 who get the most votes. I know it's a formality given the amount of support everyone have for me and Tobit but I'm asking this because we wanted it to be officially endorsed by the majority and to deflect potential accusations of favoritism of a few people.

As I already said, the PG is genuinely trying hard to please the most people but they aren't good with the PR side, thus the crux of the current issue.