Metellus,

You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it. What
use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish those funds?
You, with your banking and financial experience knows enough (because you
agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound plan wasting 10k is
absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and carry the
liability of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people that
I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over to. Then
I can just complain about it without having my neck on the line when an item
like that gets paid out and nothing really changes.

YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the item
was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual. Metellus, do you
take me for a fool, or those of my friends and allies in the Senate that we
did not ask if there were other bids? Surely with your knowledge of myself
and individuals like Caesar, Paulinus and others - that we voiced our
concerns...and even talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus -
while the Senate was meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was
addressed. Any other questions?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum apud
> Quirites s.d.
>
>
> > Well if you had a business background Livia the worst thing any
> > business can do is to spend money when it will take a long while to
> > replenish those funds. I have spelled out in the past that had NR
> > spent half of its funds on the IT....it would take many many years
> > before that money is replenished.
>
> Non sequitur. Livia did not, in the message to which
> the above is a response, make such a statement as that we should spend
> the entirety, or even half, or, in fact, any portion of the treasury on
> any specific 'project'. In point of fact, her statement was quite
> direct, and one with which I have to agree, if not by understanding
> consumer psychology then by simple logic. Paraphrased, her statement
> was to the effect that people are less willing to give when nothing
> will be gained from it.
>
> So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure they get
> something in return. We want people to give money, give them, as C
> Valeria once noted, a welcome kit. We want people to give money, give
> them a website where the available features work more often than not.
> We want people to give money, show them, clearly and unquestionably,
> that the money is going to accomplish something.
>
> Plauta, I suspect, would be more than willing to correct me if I've
> misunderstood, but I gather that the above is, in concept, the point
> that was being made. If it comes to be the case that I've well
> understood her, I agree with her point entirely.
>
> Now, none of this needs to be terribly expensive either. If, for
> example, we set the membership rate at a (again, for example) flat 25
> (insert currency of choice), and in return for paying that fee, one
> got a subscription to an annual, semi-annual, or even quarterly journal
> of sorts that cost 5 (insert currency) for each subscription, we retain
> 80 percent of that donation. There are no shortage of things that can
> be done with this either. Aside from the membership package, sorts of
> membership cards, etc, there is quite truly no end to what else we
> could do. There have been, many times over the years, proposals for
> membership certificates/diplomas/et al., most recent to my mind coming
> from Ti Galerius. In itself, that could cost a mere pittance. Small
> flags, lapel pins, a few coins, whatever. The list goes endlessly.
>
> That, though, could not be the end of it. Sure, we can provide nice
> trinkets, but people have to see -- and more importantly, trust -- that
> the remainder of the donation is going to something worthy. Of late,
> this has not been done, but my experience certainly leads me to more
> than just suspect that this is a contributing factor to our inability
> to acquire revenue. As someone who has, not infrequently, given money
> to various causes, one of the primary things I want to know, and want
> to be able to see, is where the money is going: I require knowing that
> the money is being put to (good) use. This is something at which Nova
> Roma has failed in the past, and continues to do so. But, it is
> something that we can change. It requires time, diligence, and most
> importantly, follow-through, but it can be done.
>
>
> > Spending 10k on a buddy of Quintilianus was not a wise investment -
> > nor was the proposal adequate to protect Nova Roma's best interest,
> > since there was no adequate checks or benchmarks to divide up the
> > funds based on a percentage of work. Nor was there any outside bids
> > to determine the feasibility of the work, nor was there adequate
> > means to determine if changes needed to be made to the original
> > agenda item. In other words, it was a piss poor proposal.
>
> Nevermind that the remainder of this train is as much a non sequitur as
> the opening paragraph, I'm going to have to ask what the point of this
> paragraph is other than to waste time beating on one you dislike.
> Sure, the work was to be performed by Mr From, who one can very
> reasonably assume was a friend to Quintilianus. I'll even grant you
> that there was room for a conflict of interest here, which should have
> been investigated. But as a senator, aside from voting against the
> proposal, did you state any of the above while the item was under
> consideration? Did you ask if there were other bids? If you asked, as
> I shall assmume you did, and the answer was that there were not, as I
> shall assume was the case, did you inquire as to why there were no
> other bids? Did you request that other bids be obtained and presented
> to the Senate before such time as might be a vote on the proposal? Did
> you attempt to acquire bids yourself? I pose these questions to you
> directly, Sulla, but they apply equally across the entirety of the
> Senate as it was at the time.
>
> --
> May you live in interesting times.
> -- Chinese proverb
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I miss Marcus Octavius! He was a great Nova Roman!

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Diana Octavia <romanbabe@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Well said Tiberius. Some of us remember all of the freebies that Octavius
> gave us. Thousands of dolars worth...
> Vale,
> Diana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Timothy or Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
> To: "Nova-Roma" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:33 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.
>
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > The reason I voted NOT to spend the amount suggested was that it was
> > $10,000 USD.
> > That was nearly HALF of the funds NR has in the bank.
> > While it would be nice to have custom build IT stuff for NR, Off the self
>
> > software, if and when available should be used.
> >
> > When I bought and paid for our first year or two of Quicken online it
> gave
> > us the ability to have a CFO
> > and other financial officers anywhere in the world. It allowed Equestria
> > Iunia Laeca to bring order to our finances.
> > and to use professional services at a fraction of the cost of a paid CFO.
> >
> > It cost about $400 per year. Off the self is not just cheaper in some
> ways
> > its just better.
> > The election service I recommended and which the Senate approved is
> > another example of an IT solution that
> > did not cost thousands of dollar.
> >
> > We received thousand and thousand of free IT service from Octavius over
> > the years.
> > There was no way we could have afforded what it really cost him to
> service
> > our account
> > and to develop the IT structure he created.
> >
> > Unless we find a sugar daddy or mommy for Nova Roma we never will.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > From: livia.plauta@...
> > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:13:01 +0200
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] No coup? O Rly?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve Sulla,
> > it was impossible to work with you, because the strategy of you and your
> > friends was to veto anything the magistrates tried in order to prevent
> > them
> > from getting any problem solved and to prepare the ground for your own
> > ascent to power.
> > That's why your party prevented the agreement to fix Nova Roma's IT
> system
> > then and later had to pay a good sum just to get a working voting system,
> > which fixes about 10% of what the NR IT system used to do. (By the way,
> > I'm
> > really curious to see the new system implemented).
> >
> > But that's just one example: actually most of the crises were escalated
> by
> > you and your friends. It's not by chance that the decline started when
> you
> > were reinstated in the Senate.
> >
> > But now you have the power, so use it! let's see if your party can stop
> > the
> > decline of NR.
> > You have a chance to prove me, Lentulus and Scholastica wrong by actually
> > contributing to the seamless working of NR. You don't even have to
> > overcome
> > the same obstacles that we did, because all the opposition has left NR,
> > and
> > those who stayed have no position of power.
> > You shouldn't have to worry about the way people judge the events of last
> > year. After all, they are quite irrelevant for the present.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert" <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] No coup? O Rly?
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Again my response is brief. Once there is an intercessio, as alby posted.
> > It's done and any attempt to continue to press on by getting marinus
> > appointed as dictator was a coup attempt. What stopped marinus from
> > accepting the position was that Caesar and I warned him.... Do it and
> > touch
> > nova roma's money and he would be held personally accountable and we
> would
> > sue him. At that point he decided to seek the advice of an attorney and
> he
> > was told the office of dictator is incompatible with Maine law! What that
> > means is that he would be held personally liable!
> >
> > Again attempted coup attempt failed!
> >
> > Had the coup plotters consulted an attorney first before they planned
> this
> > attempt years ago, and this was planned for over a year...they could have
> > helped nr by working with us instead of continually escalating each
> crisis
> > to a new tipping point!
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2011, at 6:36 AM, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.
> >>
> >> I thank my friend Lentulus for sparing me the work to write on this
> >> topic,
> >> by giving a detailed account of what happened and of our opinions on the
> >> matter.
> >>
> >> I need to rewrite the following statement of his into correct English,
> >> though, because it might be misunderstood in its current form.
> >> Lentulus: "Only if we had Marinus as dictator!... I think we were light
> >> years ahead today as compared to this dead frozen state in which NR
> >> stagnates without leadership... "
> >>
> >> Meaning: "If only we had Marinus as a dictator! ... I think we would be
> >> light years ahead today compared to this dead frozen state in which NR
> >> stagnates without leadership ..."
> >>
> >> The only point where my opinion differs from Lentulus' is that I think
> >> Nova
> >> Roma can no longer be "saved" now, in the sense that as an organization
> >> it
> >> is no longer suitable to support the Religio Romana (while it might
> still
> >> be
> >> a good place for reenactors who are not interested in Roman religon to
> >> meet).
> >>
> >> I also thank senator Sulla for forwarding all those posts from the
> Senate
> >> list.
> >>
> >> There used to be a "senate seal" in place, that is, senators were not
> >> allowed to forward to the Main List posts form the Senate, or to post
> >> about
> >> the discussions going on there.
> >>
> >> So for me it's a surprise, for example, to see the post by Perusianus,
> >> who
> >> usually doesn't post at all in the NR lists. Of course his assessment of
> >> the
> >> situation at the time was correct: most of the Italians had left NR and
> >> were
> >> happy with their Pomerium organization.
> >>
> >> Since then even the last attempt by me and Vindex to keep some people
> >> interested in NR has failed.
> >>
> >> Quintilianus' assessment was also correct:
> >> "Shrinking membership, less and less people who pay taxes and vote.
> >> We are losing great parts of our Spanish, Italian and Latin American
> >> citizens. No activity in Britannia and very little in Gallia. Those
> >> who are in Sarmatia and other Eastern European countries are doing a
> >> splendid job that gives us hope, but they might also also soon lose
> >> hope, because of how we act and not act."
> >>
> >> Since then there was a mass secession of Sarmatian citizens, who keep
> >> pursuing their goal of building a temple to Jupiter, but now outside
> Nova
> >> Roma.
> >>
> >> Optime valete,
> >> Livia
> >>
> >> > Lentulus omnibus sal.
> >> >
> >> > I don't want to waste my time on this discussion since I have
> explained
> >> > my
> >> > point of view several times in this and other mailing lists already.
> >> > But
> >> > as one of the many citizens who applauded the idea of appointing
> >> > Marinus
> >> > as dictator, I feel it's my moral obligation to comment and to repeat
> >> > again that what happened last year it was NOT a "coup", and it is
> >> > UTTERLY
> >> > RIDICULOUS, PRETENTIOUS, AND POMPOUS to call it a "coup". But, of
> >> > course,
> >> > all of us must have the right to use the word which fits his taste.
> >> >
> >> > I, Scholastica, Livia - and I know that many other citizens - don't
> >> > think
> >> > that an appointment of a constitutional dictator can be labeled as a
> >> > "coup", especially when it is done in a very serious crisis: exactly
> in
> >> > a
> >> > situation for what it is invented by our Constitution as a means of
> >> > solution.
> >> >
> >> > I don't exactly know what Scholastica or Livia exactly think, but for
> >> > me
> >> > what happened last year was an attempt to save Nova Roma from the
> >> > ongoing
> >> > chaos by appointing a dictator, a very legal, constitutional and Roman
> >> > thing, and it was initially supported by all senators except 1-2,
> later
> >> > still by the overwhelming majority. Almost everyone wanted the
> >> > dictator.
> >> >
> >> > Was this dictator election a pre-organized political action? OF COURSE
> >> > it
> >> > was, it had to be, as all well-thought-out political actions are
> >> > pre-organized and conscious actions. I have presonally and repeatedly
> >> > advocated for appointing a dictator in this very same mailing list
> >> > since
> >> > the beginning of the decline of NR. Many citizens trusted Marinus and
> I
> >> > still think that he was an example of leadership, and he as a senior
> >> > consular and esteemed senator could have introduced the necessary
> >> > reforms
> >> > into NR. For our detriment, and ever growing stagnation, he was not
> >> > appointed as dictator and NR is today where it is. Only if we had
> >> > Marinus
> >> > as dictator!... I think we were light years ahead today as compared to
> >> > this dead frozen state in which NR stagnates without leadership...
> >> >
> >> > So, what some very colorfully call a "coup d'etate", is viewed by many
> >> > others as a heroic attempt to save Nova Roma from the
> >> > internal warrings, stagnation and decline, using the constitutional
> >> > option
> >> > appointing a person trusted by most people as dictator.
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately, the organizers of this dictator election committed an
> >> > error - and this is why I must accept that the appointment was indeed
> >> > not
> >> > regular, thus not completely lawful.
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >> >
> >> > The dictator election attempt was executed using legally questionable
> >> > means, i.e. circumventing Albucius' consular veto by Consul
> >> > Quintilianus'
> >> > convening the senate jointly with the tribunes, which was (and still
> >> > is)
> >> > a
> >> > matter of debate whether it is legal or illegal, but the debate was
> >> > officially concluded by the rest of tribunes as illegal - though there
> >> > are
> >> > numerous theoretical objections. I, as a law respecting citizen,
> >> > accepted
> >> > the veto of the tribunes, and I still don't question the outcome: the
> >> > dictator was vetoed. Cn. Marinus Censorius dictator-elect accepted it
> >> > too.
> >> > No dictator entered office.
> >> >
> >> > That the dictator election failed it was a tragedy, because I firmly
> >> > beleive that Marinus as dictator could have stoped the stagnation of
> >> > Nova Roma, could have solved our many technical and organizational
> >> > problems including our IT problems immediately. Since then very few
> >> > improvements was made on NR, and today it seems clearer than ever that
> >> > the need for the dictator was fully justified.
> >> >
> >> > As for the featuring of a dictatorial appointment as a "coup d'etat",
> >> > it
> >> > is exaggerating, idiotic and pompous. What was, however, and still is
> a
> >> > proper question regarding those events it is whether the consul can
> >> > convene a senate session jointly by the tribunes or not. As it came
> out
> >> > Nova Roma did not accept that legal approach, and thus the dictator
> was
> >> > not deemed elected properly.
> >> >
> >> > So, accept that facts:
> >> >
> >> > 1) the dictator is a normal and legal solution in NR's constitution
> for
> >> > handling crises;
> >> > 2) many Nova Romans and senators wanted that dictator to handle the
> >> > crisis
> >> > of last year;
> >> > 3) the intention and purpose with the dictator was legal since the
> >> > institution itself is a legal NR institution;
> >> > 4) the authority which was appointing it was legal since it's the
> >> > prerogative of the senate, and it was the senate which was electing
> >> > Marinus;
> >> > 5) HOWEVER, the way of convening the senate (a consul JOINTLY with the
> >> > tribunes) was dubious, and some accepted it as a legal way of
> convening
> >> > the senate, since our laws did not prohibit it, some thought that it
> >> > was
> >> > not provided by our laws as an option because our laws did not
> >> > explicitely
> >> > allow it.
> >> > 6) This way the whole business of appointing the dictator came to a
> >> > legalistic dispute where the other consul and the other tribunes
> vetoed
> >> > it, and finally Marinus himself declined the position.
> >> >
> >> > End of the story.
> >> >
> >> > Some are now convinced that Marinus as a dictator would have done
> >> > tyrannic
> >> > actions. Many others are convinced that Marinus would have been a true
> >> > healer of our illnesses and a fair and just leader. Since Marinus has
> >> > never been installed as dictator all what goes beyond the facts are
> >> > mere
> >> > fantasy. I personally am most convinced that Marinus would have never
> >> > wanted confrontation with the law, consequently he as dictator would
> >> > have
> >> > worked for the benefit of all of NR.
> >> >
> >> > However, it is not the point of my message. The point of my message is
> >> > the
> >> > following:
> >> >
> >> > We can say that the dictator election was halted and the details of
> the
> >> > procedure of convoking the session deemed irregular; BUT no one with
> >> > sane
> >> > judgement can call it a "coup d'etat" since the dictator, appointed by
> >> > the
> >> > senate, is a LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and lawful institution in the NR
> >> > Constitution. It can not be called a "coup" what is constitutional.
> All
> >> > legal criteria were satisfied, except the bit with the joint
> >> > consular-trinunicial convoking of the senate session, which is a
> matter
> >> > of
> >> > law interpretation, since it is not explicitely forbidden. Moreover,
> >> > when
> >> > it was vetoed, the whole procedure was terminated, and the dictator
> was
> >> > not installed: consequently no law was violated.
> >> >
> >> > The conclusion is this: neither Scholastica, nor Livia, nor I are
> >> > denying
> >> > that SOMETHING happaned last year. And I AM confirming that what
> >> > happened
> >> > then it was legally problematic. But what I am saying with Scholatica
> >> > and
> >> > with others, it is that an office which is constitutional can not be
> >> > called a "coup".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I will not discuss this topic again: in the archieves you will find my
> >> > full arguing among the old posts. I know that if you carefully think
> on
> >> > the things what I have written, you will see that there is no
> >> > justification to call last year events as a "coup". So there can not
> be
> >> > a
> >> > justified difference of opinion, unless one is driven purely
> >> > emotionally
> >> > against the whole issue. Where our opinions can, however, differ in
> the
> >> > greatest extent it is whether the intention with the dictator was good
> >> > or
> >> > bad. But it is to decide for each citizen individually, since the
> >> > dictatorship, as it came out, never started on.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Caesar.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> Salve Voluse.
>
> Your generous offer joins a list of those made by others with similar
> qualifications through the years in Nova Roma, and who are no longer with
> us. Were we to place all our IT needs in your hands to solve, that would
> work well until you left NR or gave up on serving our IT needs. At that
> point we have to scrabble around again.
>

You are assuming more than what I have actually offered. Did I not suggest
some inexpensive VPS hosting that provide professional web administration
dashboards (I'm certainly NOT offering to host NR website on my server!) I
also suggested some open source CMS solutions that have no licensing fees
and if properly configured allow non-technical people free-reign to update
and manage content. You can go the COTS route, but you really don't have the
budget for it unless you can raise additional funds (grants, etc). There
really aren't any out-of-the-box products for building online republics.
That means you need to be looking at flexible FOSS (free/open-source) CMS.
However, whether commercial or open-source you will still need to think
about information architecture, usability and ongoing maintenance planning:
including the total cost of ownership. For a tiny membership organization
you really can't afford to be turning down offers of free consultative
services when you lucky enough for them to land in your lap.

> The solution is to assess our real needs, determine what software exists
> That can be both adapted to need and yet maintained with minimal technical
> knowledge, how many of our tools need to be interactive and online.
>

I have already provided a few quick suggestions with that very view in mind.
I certainly have no interest in building and maintaining software for NR or
any other group that I'm involved with. To add to those I would also
recommend NOT focusing on the technology (that is the easy part), but on the
user experience and the "business model". For starters you would be well
advised to do a comparator analysis - see what others are doing. A good
candidate to look at would be Neos Alexandria (www.neosalexandria.com). They
are quite comparable to NR's situation (a simple "citizen-based" website
with Yahoo.com communities). That community is currently thriving and
composing print devotional anthologies for sale on their website (all
community-contributed content). There are some lessons to be learned there.

Also, do you have a content inventory? Do you know what content is where
(there seem to be some content not in the wiki, but older web pages). What
is quality content, and what can be discarded? How do you decide and who
decides?

The golden rule is you don't build without a blueprint and a plan. You need
to develop a web strategy, that is documented and freely available for
review and comment. None of that takes technical expertise (though having a
technical/professional resource to consult can be invaluable) - it's a
leadership activity. It's all moot though, without any real leadership.

> However, we may yet have to place our head again in the lions mouth, so
> thank you for your offer.
>

Well, that assumes that your rather bitter rejection of help will be met
with much sympathy when you find you might actually might need that help.

Any way, good luck with all that.

Vale bene


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cn Iulius Caesar Praetor sal.

The "let's fix it" mania is what led to this situation in the first place. As for not concentrating on the past, unless we look to what was done, said, and what the actual facts are we are bound to repeat the same mistakes. We were told the current system needs replacing. Does it? Who knows? Currently the documentation, such as it is, is in the hands of an ex-member who is releasing it in dribs and drabs. There isn't to my knowledge any comprehensive manual for the IT system because it was designed by one of our ex-members, who had the savvy to carry it all in his head, which worked fine until he quit.

Being 'told" our IT system is broken by people who most in the Senate now wouldn't trust to tell them it was daylight outside, without opening the drapes to check, isn't good enough. Once we have control of our system fully, it can be independently assessed, brought back to the US, so one of our few assets is in the country where NR is incorporated (and thus more easily subject to the macronational legal system being placed with a US based host), and based on that analysis formulate a prognosis as to what is needed to make it operational. All those wanting action to "fix" something we don't know for sure is broken and the extent of the problem, would look pretty damned silly after lashing out a huge whack of money only to find out with a few tweaks the issues could have been fixed, if indeed there are any issues.

The goal for NR is to end up with a system that can be maintained by any citizen with no, or next to no, knowledge of IT. Let's plan for a system that could be maintained by your average chimp, not one that requires Einstein to run it. That way we won't be held hostage to the whims of a few technocrats.

Anything we spend isn't going to be replenished easily, and therefore we have to know it is justified. "Know", not be "told" or believe, or think or suspect - "know". That is the due diligence required of the Senate and any Board of Directors.

Optime valete


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.

Metellus,

You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it.  What
use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish those funds?
You, with your banking and financial experience knows enough (because you
agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound plan wasting 10k is
absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and carry the
liability of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people that
I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over to.  Then
I can just complain about it without having my neck on the line when an item
like that gets paid out and nothing really changes.

YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the item
was debated.  It was for the most part ignored as usual.  Metellus, do you
take me for a fool, or those of my friends and allies in the Senate that we
did not ask if there were other bids?  Surely with your knowledge of myself
and individuals like Caesar, Paulinus and others - that we voiced our
concerns...and even talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus -
while the Senate was meeting at that time.  So yes our due diligence was
addressed.  Any other questions?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum apud
> Quirites s.d.
>
>
> > Well if you had a business background Livia the worst thing any
> > business can do is to spend money when it will take a long while to
> > replenish those funds. I have spelled out in the past that had NR
> > spent half of its funds on the IT....it would take many many years
> > before that money is replenished.
>
> Non sequitur. Livia did not, in the message to which
> the above is a response, make such a statement as that we should spend
> the entirety, or even half, or, in fact, any portion of the treasury on
> any specific 'project'. In point of fact, her statement was quite
> direct, and one with which I have to agree, if not by understanding
> consumer psychology then by simple logic. Paraphrased, her statement
> was to the effect that people are less willing to give when nothing
> will be gained from it.
>
> So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure they get
> something in return. We want people to give money, give them, as C
> Valeria once noted, a welcome kit. We want people to give money, give
> them a website where the available features work more often than not.
> We want people to give money, show them, clearly and unquestionably,
> that the money is going to accomplish something.
>
> Plauta, I suspect, would be more than willing to correct me if I've
> misunderstood, but I gather that the above is, in concept, the point
> that was being made. If it comes to be the case that I've well
> understood her, I agree with her point entirely.
>
> Now, none of this needs to be terribly expensive either. If, for
> example, we set the membership rate at a (again, for example) flat 25
> (insert currency of choice), and in return for paying that fee, one
> got a subscription to an annual, semi-annual, or even quarterly journal
> of sorts that cost 5 (insert currency) for each subscription, we retain
> 80 percent of that donation. There are no shortage of things that can
> be done with this either. Aside from the membership package, sorts of
> membership cards, etc, there is quite truly no end to what else we
> could do. There have been, many times over the years, proposals for
> membership certificates/diplomas/et al., most recent to my mind coming
> from Ti Galerius. In itself, that could cost a mere pittance. Small
> flags, lapel pins, a few coins, whatever. The list goes endlessly.
>
> That, though, could not be the end of it. Sure, we can provide nice
> trinkets, but people have to see -- and more importantly, trust -- that
> the remainder of the donation is going to something worthy. Of late,
> this has not been done, but my experience certainly leads me to more
> than just suspect that this is a contributing factor to our inability
> to acquire revenue. As someone who has, not infrequently, given money
> to various causes, one of the primary things I want to know, and want
> to be able to see, is where the money is going: I require knowing that
> the money is being put to (good) use. This is something at which Nova
> Roma has failed in the past, and continues to do so. But, it is
> something that we can change. It requires time, diligence, and most
> importantly, follow-through, but it can be done.
>
>
> > Spending 10k on a buddy of Quintilianus was not a wise investment -
> > nor was the proposal adequate to protect Nova Roma's best interest,
> > since there was no adequate checks or benchmarks to divide up the
> > funds based on a percentage of work. Nor was there any outside bids
> > to determine the feasibility of the work, nor was there adequate
> > means to determine if changes needed to be made to the original
> > agenda item. In other words, it was a piss poor proposal.
>
> Nevermind that the remainder of this train is as much a non sequitur as
> the opening paragraph, I'm going to have to ask what the point of this
> paragraph is other than to waste time beating on one you dislike.
> Sure, the work was to be performed by Mr From, who one can very
> reasonably assume was a friend to Quintilianus. I'll even grant you
> that there was room for a conflict of interest here, which should have
> been investigated. But as a senator, aside from voting against the
> proposal, did you state any of the above while the item was under
> consideration? Did you ask if there were other bids? If you asked, as
> I shall assmume you did, and the answer was that there were not, as I
> shall assume was the case, did you inquire as to why there were no
> other bids? Did you request that other bids be obtained and presented
> to the Senate before such time as might be a vote on the proposal? Did
> you attempt to acquire bids yourself? I pose these questions to you
> directly, Sulla, but they apply equally across the entirety of the
> Senate as it was at the time.
>
> --
> May you live in interesting times.
> -- Chinese proverb
>
> 
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ave!

Agreed.

And, we should face facts - most of Nova Roma's money that is in the
treasury was DONATED to the organization. It did not come by the way of
taxes. Taxes have only been collected for about 5-6 years. NR existed 6+
years before that based solely on donations. But, it cannot sustain it on
that method alone anymore. It has been 13 years and Nova Roma still does
not have enough income from Taxes to pay for its yearly obligations. When I
pay for the yearly bill that NR receives we WILL be dipping into the reserve
money. This is why this past year I (with the help of Metellus and V) came
up with the three tiered tax system. The amounts I had set aside had a good
chance of paying all the yearly bills that NR receives, but it got watered
down where there is NO WAY NR can pay its bills without dipping into the
reserve.

Either NR gets a sound financial basis or it will go through the 20k over
the next few years. Because NR cannot live on donations alone.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar Praetor sal.
>
> The "let's fix it" mania is what led to this situation in the first place.
> As for not concentrating on the past, unless we look to what was done, said,
> and what the actual facts are we are bound to repeat the same mistakes. We
> were told the current system needs replacing. Does it? Who knows? Currently
> the documentation, such as it is, is in the hands of an ex-member who is
> releasing it in dribs and drabs. There isn't to my knowledge any
> comprehensive manual for the IT system because it was designed by one of our
> ex-members, who had the savvy to carry it all in his head, which worked fine
> until he quit.
>
> Being 'told" our IT system is broken by people who most in the Senate now
> wouldn't trust to tell them it was daylight outside, without opening the
> drapes to check, isn't good enough. Once we have control of our system
> fully, it can be independently assessed, brought back to the US, so one of
> our few assets is in the country where NR is incorporated (and thus more
> easily subject to the macronational legal system being placed with a US
> based host), and based on that analysis formulate a prognosis as to what is
> needed to make it operational. All those wanting action to "fix" something
> we don't know for sure is broken and the extent of the problem, would look
> pretty damned silly after lashing out a huge whack of money only to find out
> with a few tweaks the issues could have been fixed, if indeed there are any
> issues.
>
> The goal for NR is to end up with a system that can be maintained by any
> citizen with no, or next to no, knowledge of IT. Let's plan for a system
> that could be maintained by your average chimp, not one that requires
> Einstein to run it. That way we won't be held hostage to the whims of a few
> technocrats.
>
> Anything we spend isn't going to be replenished easily, and therefore we
> have to know it is justified. "Know", not be "told" or believe, or think or
> suspect - "know". That is the due diligence required of the Senate and any
> Board of Directors.
>
> Optime valete
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.
>
>
> Metellus,
>
> You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it. What
> use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish those
> funds?
> You, with your banking and financial experience knows enough (because you
> agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound plan wasting 10k is
> absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and carry
> the
> liability of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people that
> I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over to. Then
> I can just complain about it without having my neck on the line when an
> item
> like that gets paid out and nothing really changes.
>
> YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the item
> was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual. Metellus, do you
> take me for a fool, or those of my friends and allies in the Senate that we
> did not ask if there were other bids? Surely with your knowledge of myself
> and individuals like Caesar, Paulinus and others - that we voiced our
> concerns...and even talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus -
> while the Senate was meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was
> addressed. Any other questions?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
> q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum apud
> > Quirites s.d.
> >
> >
> > > Well if you had a business background Livia the worst thing any
> > > business can do is to spend money when it will take a long while to
> > > replenish those funds. I have spelled out in the past that had NR
> > > spent half of its funds on the IT....it would take many many years
> > > before that money is replenished.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Livia did not, in the message to which
> > the above is a response, make such a statement as that we should spend
> > the entirety, or even half, or, in fact, any portion of the treasury on
> > any specific 'project'. In point of fact, her statement was quite
> > direct, and one with which I have to agree, if not by understanding
> > consumer psychology then by simple logic. Paraphrased, her statement
> > was to the effect that people are less willing to give when nothing
> > will be gained from it.
> >
> > So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure they get
> > something in return. We want people to give money, give them, as C
> > Valeria once noted, a welcome kit. We want people to give money, give
> > them a website where the available features work more often than not.
> > We want people to give money, show them, clearly and unquestionably,
> > that the money is going to accomplish something.
> >
> > Plauta, I suspect, would be more than willing to correct me if I've
> > misunderstood, but I gather that the above is, in concept, the point
> > that was being made. If it comes to be the case that I've well
> > understood her, I agree with her point entirely.
> >
> > Now, none of this needs to be terribly expensive either. If, for
> > example, we set the membership rate at a (again, for example) flat 25
> > (insert currency of choice), and in return for paying that fee, one
> > got a subscription to an annual, semi-annual, or even quarterly journal
> > of sorts that cost 5 (insert currency) for each subscription, we retain
> > 80 percent of that donation. There are no shortage of things that can
> > be done with this either. Aside from the membership package, sorts of
> > membership cards, etc, there is quite truly no end to what else we
> > could do. There have been, many times over the years, proposals for
> > membership certificates/diplomas/et al., most recent to my mind coming
> > from Ti Galerius. In itself, that could cost a mere pittance. Small
> > flags, lapel pins, a few coins, whatever. The list goes endlessly.
> >
> > That, though, could not be the end of it. Sure, we can provide nice
> > trinkets, but people have to see -- and more importantly, trust -- that
> > the remainder of the donation is going to something worthy. Of late,
> > this has not been done, but my experience certainly leads me to more
> > than just suspect that this is a contributing factor to our inability
> > to acquire revenue. As someone who has, not infrequently, given money
> > to various causes, one of the primary things I want to know, and want
> > to be able to see, is where the money is going: I require knowing that
> > the money is being put to (good) use. This is something at which Nova
> > Roma has failed in the past, and continues to do so. But, it is
> > something that we can change. It requires time, diligence, and most
> > importantly, follow-through, but it can be done.
> >
> >
> > > Spending 10k on a buddy of Quintilianus was not a wise investment -
> > > nor was the proposal adequate to protect Nova Roma's best interest,
> > > since there was no adequate checks or benchmarks to divide up the
> > > funds based on a percentage of work. Nor was there any outside bids
> > > to determine the feasibility of the work, nor was there adequate
> > > means to determine if changes needed to be made to the original
> > > agenda item. In other words, it was a piss poor proposal.
> >
> > Nevermind that the remainder of this train is as much a non sequitur as
> > the opening paragraph, I'm going to have to ask what the point of this
> > paragraph is other than to waste time beating on one you dislike.
> > Sure, the work was to be performed by Mr From, who one can very
> > reasonably assume was a friend to Quintilianus. I'll even grant you
> > that there was room for a conflict of interest here, which should have
> > been investigated. But as a senator, aside from voting against the
> > proposal, did you state any of the above while the item was under
> > consideration? Did you ask if there were other bids? If you asked, as
> > I shall assmume you did, and the answer was that there were not, as I
> > shall assume was the case, did you inquire as to why there were no
> > other bids? Did you request that other bids be obtained and presented
> > to the Senate before such time as might be a vote on the proposal? Did
> > you attempt to acquire bids yourself? I pose these questions to you
> > directly, Sulla, but they apply equally across the entirety of the
> > Senate as it was at the time.
> >
> > --
> > May you live in interesting times.
> > -- Chinese proverb
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Voluse

Currently we "know" (as opposed to being "told") squat about the real state of the current system, as firstly a lot of the access codes and basic commands are being only released to the current consuls in dribs and drabs, or no one knows. That's a by-product of last year and thus sadly the reality which must be discussed and explained, despite some finding it distasteful. 

Until NR regains full control of the system I am not voting one cent to a fix or repair until we have (ideally) an independent assessment that lists what is wrong. I am not relying on anything I have been "told" with little to no proof offered. Someone needs to get into the guts of the code and root around, and that can't be done until we have full control allowing us to do so.

I want a simple effective system that does the job, that doesn't make us reliant on those with specialized knowledge and which doesn't bleed the Treasury dry. We know the steps that have to be taken and are working towards that goal.

Vale bene
Caesar


________________________________
From: V. Valerius Volusus <nykcowham@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: IT costs and off the self software.

Salve Caesar.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>  Salve Voluse.
>
> Your generous offer joins a list of those made by others with similar
> qualifications through the years in Nova Roma, and who are no longer with
> us. Were we to place all our IT needs in your hands to solve, that would
> work well until you left NR or gave up on serving our IT needs. At that
> point we have to scrabble around again.
>

You are assuming more than what I have actually offered. Did I not suggest
some inexpensive VPS hosting that provide professional web administration
dashboards (I'm certainly NOT offering to host NR website on my server!) I
also suggested some open source CMS solutions that have no licensing fees
and if properly configured allow non-technical people free-reign to update
and manage content. You can go the COTS route, but you really don't have the
budget for it unless you can raise additional funds (grants, etc). There
really aren't any out-of-the-box products for building online republics.
That means you need to be looking at flexible FOSS (free/open-source) CMS.
However, whether commercial or open-source you will still need to think
about information architecture, usability and ongoing maintenance planning:
including the total cost of ownership. For a tiny membership organization
you really can't afford to be turning down offers of free consultative
services when you lucky enough for them to land in your lap.

> The solution is to assess our real needs, determine what software exists
> That can be both adapted to need and yet maintained with minimal technical
> knowledge, how many of our tools need to be interactive and online.
>

I have already provided a few quick suggestions with that very view in mind.
I certainly have no interest in building and maintaining software for NR or
any other group that I'm involved with. To add to those I would also
recommend NOT focusing on the technology (that is the easy part), but on the
user experience and the "business model". For starters you would be well
advised to do a comparator analysis - see what others are doing. A good
candidate to look at would be Neos Alexandria (www.neosalexandria.com). They
are quite comparable to NR's situation (a simple "citizen-based" website
with Yahoo.com communities). That community is currently thriving and
composing print devotional anthologies for sale on their website (all
community-contributed content). There are some lessons to be learned there.

Also, do you have a content inventory? Do you know what content is where
(there seem to be some content not in the wiki, but older web pages). What
is quality content, and what can be discarded? How do you decide and who
decides?

The golden rule is you don't build without a blueprint and a plan. You need
to develop a web strategy, that is documented and freely available for
review and comment. None of that takes technical expertise (though having a
technical/professional resource to consult can be invaluable) - it's a
leadership activity. It's all moot though, without any real leadership.

> However, we may yet have to place our head again in the lions mouth, so
> thank you for your offer.
>

Well, that assumes that your rather bitter rejection of help will be met
with much sympathy when you find you might actually might need that help.

Any way, good luck with all that.

Vale bene


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Caeca Voluso Sal!

I couldn't agree with you, more, although I can be of *no* helping IT matters ..no sane person would want me anywhere near technical matters, let's start doing what we committed to do in January, and rebuild ourselves. I am not saying we should forge the past, but neither for we need to relive it, in every serious discussion.

Vale bene!
Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes,

I'm a new citizen.

Yahoo can host the basic website for 10 dollars US a month. Add the
wiki pages, merchant services, chat forums, and email accounts for the
citizens and you're talking maybe $70 US a month. They're bullet proof
reliable and can do it all for a fee or help with the setup for
nothing. I'm sure you can just upload the entire source code for
NovaRoma.ORG and be done with it. Building your own IT infrastructure
doesn't make sense. Plus they have support.

I've been trying to log into NovaRoma.org and the wiki site since I've
been granted citizenship and haven't been able to (if anyone can help,
I'd appreciate it) I can get into the Civitas Album but that's it.


As for paying taxes, I'd be reluctant until I see some sound financial
planning coming from the Nova Roma government. This talk of coup,
revolution, wild spending by Consuls and lack of an IT solution is
keeping my wallet closed. Now I'm new and what I'm seeing may not be an
accurate but my initial view is making me wobbly.


There are other ways to generate funds then taxes. How about branding
the site and selling things? I'd buy items with a NovaRoma logo it.
How about minting a yearly challenge coin with the Consuls image that
looks like a coin minted in Ancient Rome? *Nova Roma 2764 SPQNR!* I'd
buy a few of those. There are a thousand ideas for alternate fund
generation.


Vale, et valete,

Decimus Cornelius Mento

On 8/20/2011 11:18 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar Praetor sal.
>
> The "let's fix it" mania is what led to this situation in the first
> place. As for not concentrating on the past, unless we look to what
> was done, said, and what the actual facts are we are bound to repeat
> the same mistakes. We were told the current system needs replacing.
> Does it? Who knows? Currently the documentation, such as it is, is in
> the hands of an ex-member who is releasing it in dribs and drabs.
> There isn't to my knowledge any comprehensive manual for the IT system
> because it was designed by one of our ex-members, who had the savvy to
> carry it all in his head, which worked fine until he quit.
>
> Being 'told" our IT system is broken by people who most in the Senate
> now wouldn't trust to tell them it was daylight outside, without
> opening the drapes to check, isn't good enough. Once we have control
> of our system fully, it can be independently assessed, brought back to
> the US, so one of our few assets is in the country where NR is
> incorporated (and thus more easily subject to the macronational legal
> system being placed with a US based host), and based on that analysis
> formulate a prognosis as to what is needed to make it operational. All
> those wanting action to "fix" something we don't know for sure is
> broken and the extent of the problem, would look pretty damned silly
> after lashing out a huge whack of money only to find out with a few
> tweaks the issues could have been fixed, if indeed there are any issues.
>
> The goal for NR is to end up with a system that can be maintained by
> any citizen with no, or next to no, knowledge of IT. Let's plan for a
> system that could be maintained by your average chimp, not one that
> requires Einstein to run it. That way we won't be held hostage to the
> whims of a few technocrats.
>
> Anything we spend isn't going to be replenished easily, and therefore
> we have to know it is justified. "Know", not be "told" or believe, or
> think or suspect - "know". That is the due diligence required of the
> Senate and any Board of Directors.
>
> Optime valete
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> <mailto:robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.
>
> Metellus,
>
> You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it. What
> use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish those
> funds?
> You, with your banking and financial experience knows enough (because you
> agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound plan wasting 10k is
> absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and
> carry the
> liability of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people
> that
> I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over to.
> Then
> I can just complain about it without having my neck on the line when
> an item
> like that gets paid out and nothing really changes.
>
> YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the item
> was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual. Metellus, do you
> take me for a fool, or those of my friends and allies in the Senate
> that we
> did not ask if there were other bids? Surely with your knowledge of
> myself
> and individuals like Caesar, Paulinus and others - that we voiced our
> concerns...and even talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus -
> while the Senate was meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was
> addressed. Any other questions?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
> q.caecilius.metellus@...
> <mailto:q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum apud
> > Quirites s.d.
> >
> >
> > > Well if you had a business background Livia the worst thing any
> > > business can do is to spend money when it will take a long while to
> > > replenish those funds. I have spelled out in the past that had NR
> > > spent half of its funds on the IT....it would take many many years
> > > before that money is replenished.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Livia did not, in the message to which
> > the above is a response, make such a statement as that we should spend
> > the entirety, or even half, or, in fact, any portion of the treasury on
> > any specific 'project'. In point of fact, her statement was quite
> > direct, and one with which I have to agree, if not by understanding
> > consumer psychology then by simple logic. Paraphrased, her statement
> > was to the effect that people are less willing to give when nothing
> > will be gained from it.
> >
> > So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure they get
> > something in return. We want people to give money, give them, as C
> > Valeria once noted, a welcome kit. We want people to give money, give
> > them a website where the available features work more often than not.
> > We want people to give money, show them, clearly and unquestionably,
> > that the money is going to accomplish something.
> >
> > Plauta, I suspect, would be more than willing to correct me if I've
> > misunderstood, but I gather that the above is, in concept, the point
> > that was being made. If it comes to be the case that I've well
> > understood her, I agree with her point entirely.
> >
> > Now, none of this needs to be terribly expensive either. If, for
> > example, we set the membership rate at a (again, for example) flat 25
> > (insert currency of choice), and in return for paying that fee, one
> > got a subscription to an annual, semi-annual, or even quarterly journal
> > of sorts that cost 5 (insert currency) for each subscription, we retain
> > 80 percent of that donation. There are no shortage of things that can
> > be done with this either. Aside from the membership package, sorts of
> > membership cards, etc, there is quite truly no end to what else we
> > could do. There have been, many times over the years, proposals for
> > membership certificates/diplomas/et al., most recent to my mind coming
> > from Ti Galerius. In itself, that could cost a mere pittance. Small
> > flags, lapel pins, a few coins, whatever. The list goes endlessly.
> >
> > That, though, could not be the end of it. Sure, we can provide nice
> > trinkets, but people have to see -- and more importantly, trust -- that
> > the remainder of the donation is going to something worthy. Of late,
> > this has not been done, but my experience certainly leads me to more
> > than just suspect that this is a contributing factor to our inability
> > to acquire revenue. As someone who has, not infrequently, given money
> > to various causes, one of the primary things I want to know, and want
> > to be able to see, is where the money is going: I require knowing that
> > the money is being put to (good) use. This is something at which Nova
> > Roma has failed in the past, and continues to do so. But, it is
> > something that we can change. It requires time, diligence, and most
> > importantly, follow-through, but it can be done.
> >
> >
> > > Spending 10k on a buddy of Quintilianus was not a wise investment -
> > > nor was the proposal adequate to protect Nova Roma's best interest,
> > > since there was no adequate checks or benchmarks to divide up the
> > > funds based on a percentage of work. Nor was there any outside bids
> > > to determine the feasibility of the work, nor was there adequate
> > > means to determine if changes needed to be made to the original
> > > agenda item. In other words, it was a piss poor proposal.
> >
> > Nevermind that the remainder of this train is as much a non sequitur as
> > the opening paragraph, I'm going to have to ask what the point of this
> > paragraph is other than to waste time beating on one you dislike.
> > Sure, the work was to be performed by Mr From, who one can very
> > reasonably assume was a friend to Quintilianus. I'll even grant you
> > that there was room for a conflict of interest here, which should have
> > been investigated. But as a senator, aside from voting against the
> > proposal, did you state any of the above while the item was under
> > consideration? Did you ask if there were other bids? If you asked, as
> > I shall assmume you did, and the answer was that there were not, as I
> > shall assume was the case, did you inquire as to why there were no
> > other bids? Did you request that other bids be obtained and presented
> > to the Senate before such time as might be a vote on the proposal? Did
> > you attempt to acquire bids yourself? I pose these questions to you
> > directly, Sulla, but they apply equally across the entirety of the
> > Senate as it was at the time.
> >
> > --
> > May you live in interesting times.
> > -- Chinese proverb
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Caesar,

I think it would be helpful if you would answer Iulia Aquila's request
(Subject: Current IT Situation Update) and provide an outline of what is
currently in progress, the projected schedule etc. Ultimately every NR
citizen is a stakeholder in our web services - and if not all citizens, then
certainly those assidui are.

There are certainly calls to action - mine own included. However, that
doesn't mean that we expect things to be fixed like magic. We do expect that
the situation is being addressed, a reasonable plan has been or is being
developed, and then to be kept regularly informed with regard to progress on
the current initiatives. I think that is quite a reasonable request to make
to a public official who says: "We know the steps that have to be taken and
are working towards that goal." We just want to see the pudding :D

Vale optime!

Volusus.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve Voluse
>
> Currently we "know" (as opposed to being "told") squat about the real state
> of the current system, as firstly a lot of the access codes and basic
> commands are being only released to the current consuls in dribs and drabs,
> or no one knows. That's a by-product of last year and thus sadly the reality
> which must be discussed and explained, despite some finding it distasteful.
>
> Until NR regains full control of the system I am not voting one cent to a
> fix or repair until we have (ideally) an independent assessment that lists
> what is wrong. I am not relying on anything I have been "told" with little
> to no proof offered. Someone needs to get into the guts of the code and root
> around, and that can't be done until we have full control allowing us to do
> so.
>
> I want a simple effective system that does the job, that doesn't make us
> reliant on those with specialized knowledge and which doesn't bleed the
> Treasury dry. We know the steps that have to be taken and are working
> towards that goal.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
> ________________________________
> From: V. Valerius Volusus <nykcowham@...>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: IT costs and off the self software.
>
>
> Salve Caesar.
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve Voluse.
> >
> > Your generous offer joins a list of those made by others with similar
> > qualifications through the years in Nova Roma, and who are no longer with
> > us. Were we to place all our IT needs in your hands to solve, that would
> > work well until you left NR or gave up on serving our IT needs. At that
> > point we have to scrabble around again.
> >
> You are assuming more than what I have actually offered. Did I not suggest
> some inexpensive VPS hosting that provide professional web administration
> dashboards (I'm certainly NOT offering to host NR website on my server!) I
> also suggested some open source CMS solutions that have no licensing fees
> and if properly configured allow non-technical people free-reign to update
> and manage content. You can go the COTS route, but you really don't have
> the
> budget for it unless you can raise additional funds (grants, etc). There
> really aren't any out-of-the-box products for building online republics.
> That means you need to be looking at flexible FOSS (free/open-source) CMS.
> However, whether commercial or open-source you will still need to think
> about information architecture, usability and ongoing maintenance planning:
> including the total cost of ownership. For a tiny membership organization
> you really can't afford to be turning down offers of free consultative
> services when you lucky enough for them to land in your lap.
>
> > The solution is to assess our real needs, determine what software exists
> > That can be both adapted to need and yet maintained with minimal
> technical
> > knowledge, how many of our tools need to be interactive and online.
> >
> I have already provided a few quick suggestions with that very view in
> mind.
> I certainly have no interest in building and maintaining software for NR or
> any other group that I'm involved with. To add to those I would also
> recommend NOT focusing on the technology (that is the easy part), but on
> the
> user experience and the "business model". For starters you would be well
> advised to do a comparator analysis - see what others are doing. A good
> candidate to look at would be Neos Alexandria (www.neosalexandria.com).
> They
> are quite comparable to NR's situation (a simple "citizen-based" website
> with Yahoo.com communities). That community is currently thriving and
> composing print devotional anthologies for sale on their website (all
> community-contributed content). There are some lessons to be learned there.
>
> Also, do you have a content inventory? Do you know what content is where
> (there seem to be some content not in the wiki, but older web pages). What
> is quality content, and what can be discarded? How do you decide and who
> decides?
>
> The golden rule is you don't build without a blueprint and a plan. You need
> to develop a web strategy, that is documented and freely available for
> review and comment. None of that takes technical expertise (though having a
> technical/professional resource to consult can be invaluable) - it's a
> leadership activity. It's all moot though, without any real leadership.
>
> > However, we may yet have to place our head again in the lions mouth, so
> > thank you for your offer.
> >
> Well, that assumes that your rather bitter rejection of help will be met
> with much sympathy when you find you might actually might need that help.
>
> Any way, good luck with all that.
>
> Vale bene
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Metellus Sullae s.d.

> You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it.
> What use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish
> those funds? You, with your banking and financial experience knows
> enough (because you agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound
> plan wasting 10k is absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO
> of Nova Roma and carry the liability of signing off on those funds,
> you are one of the few people that I would feel qualified enough to
> turning that responsibility over to. Then I can just complain about
> it without having my neck on the line when an item like that gets
> paid out and nothing really changes.

Again, non sequitur. That's not even in the ballpark of what I've
addressed at all.

> YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the
> item was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual.
> Metellus, do you take me for a fool, or those of my friends and
> allies in the Senate that we did not ask if there were other bids?
> Surely with your knowledge of myself and individuals like Caesar,
> Paulinus and others - that we voiced our concerns...and even talked
> to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus - while the Senate was
> meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was addressed. Any
> other questions?

Yes, as a matter of fact. First, aside from the two fine individuals
you mentioned, did you seek opinions and bids from anyone else? What
were the responses? Were those presented to the Senate? How did the
Senate respond to them?

Second, would you be so kind as to answer the earlier, more pertinent
part of my original missive, which, for the sake of bandwidth, I'll cut
down to two sentences from it: "Paraphrased, her statement was to the
effect that people are less willing to give when nothing will be gained
from it. ... So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure
they get something in return."


--
"Let's not be too tough on our own ignorance. It's the thing that makes
America great. If America weren't incomparably ignorant, how could we
have tolerated the last eight years?"
-- Frank Zappa, Feb 1, 1989

Salve Mento

Exactly, and when we can get access to the code to examine it and form the prognosis I for one will be advocating for a host such as Yahoo, for the simple reason that a corporate asset won't be placed in the hands of an individual with a server, or off in the far distant reaches of the galaxy. 

As for your wallet being closed, I understand that. However also consider the fact that last year the objective of some was to spend on something, anything in order to demonstrate value for money and a reason for members to contribute more. There were two big ticket items, neither of which in my opinion advance the cause of NR one jot. A flashy webpage replete with glitzy automated tools might be seen as necessary by some, but if there are work arounds which do the same job and leave those funds intact, then that is fiscal prudence. Would you rather have corporate funds managed by people with a burning hole in their pocket, or those who want to see a real cost benefit analysis based on facts before the corporate wallet gets cracked open?

Sound housekeeping or spending for the sake of 'doing' something regardless of cost?

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Praetor




________________________________
From: D. Cornelius Mento <decimuscorneliusmento@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.

Salvete omnes,

I'm a new citizen.

Yahoo can host the basic website for 10 dollars US a month.  Add the
wiki pages, merchant services, chat forums, and email accounts for the
citizens and you're talking maybe $70 US a month.  They're bullet proof
reliable and can do it all for a fee or help with the setup for
nothing.  I'm sure you can just upload the entire source code for
NovaRoma.ORG and be done with it.  Building your own IT infrastructure
doesn't make sense.  Plus they have support.

I've been trying to log into NovaRoma.org and the wiki site since I've
been granted citizenship and haven't been able to (if anyone can help,
I'd appreciate it)  I can get into the Civitas Album but that's it.


As for paying taxes, I'd be reluctant until I see some sound financial
planning coming from the Nova Roma government.  This talk of coup,
revolution, wild spending by Consuls and lack of an IT solution is
keeping my wallet closed.  Now I'm new and what I'm seeing may not be an
accurate but my initial view is making me wobbly.


There are other ways to generate funds then taxes.  How about branding
the site and selling things?  I'd buy items with a NovaRoma logo it. 
How about minting a yearly challenge coin with the Consuls image that
looks like a coin minted in Ancient Rome? *Nova Roma 2764 SPQNR!* I'd
buy a few of those.  There are a thousand ideas for alternate fund
generation.


Vale, et valete,

Decimus Cornelius Mento

On 8/20/2011 11:18 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar Praetor sal.
>
> The "let's fix it" mania is what led to this situation in the first
> place. As for not concentrating on the past, unless we look to what
> was done, said, and what the actual facts are we are bound to repeat
> the same mistakes. We were told the current system needs replacing.
> Does it? Who knows? Currently the documentation, such as it is, is in
> the hands of an ex-member who is releasing it in dribs and drabs.
> There isn't to my knowledge any comprehensive manual for the IT system
> because it was designed by one of our ex-members, who had the savvy to
> carry it all in his head, which worked fine until he quit.
>
> Being 'told" our IT system is broken by people who most in the Senate
> now wouldn't trust to tell them it was daylight outside, without
> opening the drapes to check, isn't good enough. Once we have control
> of our system fully, it can be independently assessed, brought back to
> the US, so one of our few assets is in the country where NR is
> incorporated (and thus more easily subject to the macronational legal
> system being placed with a US based host), and based on that analysis
> formulate a prognosis as to what is needed to make it operational. All
> those wanting action to "fix" something we don't know for sure is
> broken and the extent of the problem, would look pretty damned silly
> after lashing out a huge whack of money only to find out with a few
> tweaks the issues could have been fixed, if indeed there are any issues.
>
> The goal for NR is to end up with a system that can be maintained by
> any citizen with no, or next to no, knowledge of IT. Let's plan for a
> system that could be maintained by your average chimp, not one that
> requires Einstein to run it. That way we won't be held hostage to the
> whims of a few technocrats.
>
> Anything we spend isn't going to be replenished easily, and therefore
> we have to know it is justified. "Know", not be "told" or believe, or
> think or suspect - "know". That is the due diligence required of the
> Senate and any Board of Directors.
>
> Optime valete
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> <mailto:robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.
>
> Metellus,
>
> You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it.  What
> use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish those
> funds?
> You, with your banking and financial experience knows enough (because you
> agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound plan wasting 10k is
> absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and
> carry the
> liability of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people
> that
> I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over to. 
> Then
> I can just complain about it without having my neck on the line when
> an item
> like that gets paid out and nothing really changes.
>
> YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the item
> was debated.  It was for the most part ignored as usual.  Metellus, do you
> take me for a fool, or those of my friends and allies in the Senate
> that we
> did not ask if there were other bids?  Surely with your knowledge of
> myself
> and individuals like Caesar, Paulinus and others - that we voiced our
> concerns...and even talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus -
> while the Senate was meeting at that time.  So yes our due diligence was
> addressed.  Any other questions?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
> q.caecilius.metellus@...
> <mailto:q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum apud
> > Quirites s.d.
> >
> >
> > > Well if you had a business background Livia the worst thing any
> > > business can do is to spend money when it will take a long while to
> > > replenish those funds. I have spelled out in the past that had NR
> > > spent half of its funds on the IT....it would take many many years
> > > before that money is replenished.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Livia did not, in the message to which
> > the above is a response, make such a statement as that we should spend
> > the entirety, or even half, or, in fact, any portion of the treasury on
> > any specific 'project'. In point of fact, her statement was quite
> > direct, and one with which I have to agree, if not by understanding
> > consumer psychology then by simple logic. Paraphrased, her statement
> > was to the effect that people are less willing to give when nothing
> > will be gained from it.
> >
> > So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure they get
> > something in return. We want people to give money, give them, as C
> > Valeria once noted, a welcome kit. We want people to give money, give
> > them a website where the available features work more often than not.
> > We want people to give money, show them, clearly and unquestionably,
> > that the money is going to accomplish something.
> >
> > Plauta, I suspect, would be more than willing to correct me if I've
> > misunderstood, but I gather that the above is, in concept, the point
> > that was being made. If it comes to be the case that I've well
> > understood her, I agree with her point entirely.
> >
> > Now, none of this needs to be terribly expensive either. If, for
> > example, we set the membership rate at a (again, for example) flat 25
> > (insert currency of choice), and in return for paying that fee, one
> > got a subscription to an annual, semi-annual, or even quarterly journal
> > of sorts that cost 5 (insert currency) for each subscription, we retain
> > 80 percent of that donation. There are no shortage of things that can
> > be done with this either. Aside from the membership package, sorts of
> > membership cards, etc, there is quite truly no end to what else we
> > could do. There have been, many times over the years, proposals for
> > membership certificates/diplomas/et al., most recent to my mind coming
> > from Ti Galerius. In itself, that could cost a mere pittance. Small
> > flags, lapel pins, a few coins, whatever. The list goes endlessly.
> >
> > That, though, could not be the end of it. Sure, we can provide nice
> > trinkets, but people have to see -- and more importantly, trust -- that
> > the remainder of the donation is going to something worthy. Of late,
> > this has not been done, but my experience certainly leads me to more
> > than just suspect that this is a contributing factor to our inability
> > to acquire revenue. As someone who has, not infrequently, given money
> > to various causes, one of the primary things I want to know, and want
> > to be able to see, is where the money is going: I require knowing that
> > the money is being put to (good) use. This is something at which Nova
> > Roma has failed in the past, and continues to do so. But, it is
> > something that we can change. It requires time, diligence, and most
> > importantly, follow-through, but it can be done.
> >
> >
> > > Spending 10k on a buddy of Quintilianus was not a wise investment -
> > > nor was the proposal adequate to protect Nova Roma's best interest,
> > > since there was no adequate checks or benchmarks to divide up the
> > > funds based on a percentage of work. Nor was there any outside bids
> > > to determine the feasibility of the work, nor was there adequate
> > > means to determine if changes needed to be made to the original
> > > agenda item. In other words, it was a piss poor proposal.
> >
> > Nevermind that the remainder of this train is as much a non sequitur as
> > the opening paragraph, I'm going to have to ask what the point of this
> > paragraph is other than to waste time beating on one you dislike.
> > Sure, the work was to be performed by Mr From, who one can very
> > reasonably assume was a friend to Quintilianus. I'll even grant you
> > that there was room for a conflict of interest here, which should have
> > been investigated. But as a senator, aside from voting against the
> > proposal, did you state any of the above while the item was under
> > consideration? Did you ask if there were other bids? If you asked, as
> > I shall assmume you did, and the answer was that there were not, as I
> > shall assume was the case, did you inquire as to why there were no
> > other bids? Did you request that other bids be obtained and presented
> > to the Senate before such time as might be a vote on the proposal? Did
> > you attempt to acquire bids yourself? I pose these questions to you
> > directly, Sulla, but they apply equally across the entirety of the
> > Senate as it was at the time.
> >
> > --
> > May you live in interesting times.
> > -- Chinese proverb
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ave!

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Metellus Sullae s.d.
>
>
> > You actually know better than that, because we have talked about it.
> > What use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish
> > those funds? You, with your banking and financial experience knows
> > enough (because you agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound
> > plan wasting 10k is absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO
> > of Nova Roma and carry the liability of signing off on those funds,
> > you are one of the few people that I would feel qualified enough to
> > turning that responsibility over to. Then I can just complain about
> > it without having my neck on the line when an item like that gets
> > paid out and nothing really changes.
>
> Again, non sequitur. That's not even in the ballpark of what I've
> addressed at all.
>

And your response is a non sequitur. It is specifically in the ballpark of
my own discussion.

>
>
> > YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the
> > item was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual.
> > Metellus, do you take me for a fool, or those of my friends and
> > allies in the Senate that we did not ask if there were other bids?
> > Surely with your knowledge of myself and individuals like Caesar,
> > Paulinus and others - that we voiced our concerns...and even talked
> > to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus - while the Senate was
> > meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was addressed. Any
> > other questions?
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact. First, aside from the two fine individuals
> you mentioned, did you seek opinions and bids from anyone else?
>

No time, because after a period of 2-3 days - the dictatorship and attempted
coup was in full swing - remember the posts I forwarded from the senate
list. All these items were on ONE SENATE CALL at the same time. And, once
the (4) Tribunes and Caeso Fabius decided to implement their plan for a
coup - everything else stopped while the coup attempt took precedence.
Which I would hope you would agree was a more important matter.

> What
> were the responses? Were those presented to the Senate? How did the
> Senate respond to them?
>

Beyond being ignored? I seem to recall an acquiescence that payments be
broken up in 4 parts - every other concern was ignored. Even Maine law,
which I believe Caesar illustrated how even giving funds to Octavius Pius
violated Maine law.

>
> Second, would you be so kind as to answer the earlier, more pertinent
> part of my original missive, which, for the sake of bandwidth, I'll cut
> down to two sentences from it: "Paraphrased, her statement was to the
>
> effect that people are less willing to give when nothing will be gained
> from it. ... So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure
> they get something in return."
>

Right now, I will be honest, that is not my primary concern but the
preservation of existing Nova Roma capital. I would think your question
would best be addressed to the Aediles, and Consuls both who have
jurisdictional authority over the marketplace and in Nova Roma government.
I have given a few proposals to streamline the revenue for the marketplace -
but they are with the Consuls. My role as CFO is primarily based on
reporting to the Consuls and Controls of Nova Roma's financials to prevent
issues like the MMP and ProDiis from happening again.

I hope I answered your question - since you greatly assisted in co-authoring
the CFO proposal agenda item which was adopted by the Senate.

Vale,

Sulla

>
> --
> "Let's not be too tough on our own ignorance. It's the thing that makes
> America great. If America weren't incomparably ignorant, how could we
> have tolerated the last eight years?"
> -- Frank Zappa, Feb 1, 1989
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Caesar

Access to the code should be secondary to getting a working website that
is enjoyable, informative and community oriented that is reliable for
the long haul. It doesn't have to be splashy, just attractive enough so
people who happened to come across are intrigued enough to search
further and bring in new citizens. It's silly that we are having this
conversation through Yahoogroups and not a NovaRoma website forum.
Having an email address of *citizen_name@...* is advertising
itself. Yahoo merchant services makes paying taxes through paypal or
credit cards and buying products that NovaRoma makes a profit from easy
and secure. Plus if you have enough web traffic coming to the site, you
can sell ads that have the website paying for itself. Yahoo will help
setting all this up and have ideas all of their own. Then you can worry
about getting back any proprietary code.

(I'm suggesting Yahoo because I've been using their email since the
flood and it's been bullet proof, but I'm sure Google, MSN and Lycos
offer similar services.)

Vale bene,

D. Mento

On 8/20/2011 12:05 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
>
> Salve Mento
>
> Exactly, and when we can get access to the code to examine it and form
> the prognosis I for one will be advocating for a host such as Yahoo,
> for the simple reason that a corporate asset won't be placed in the
> hands of an individual with a server, or off in the far distant
> reaches of the galaxy.
>
> As for your wallet being closed, I understand that. However also
> consider the fact that last year the objective of some was to spend on
> something, anything in order to demonstrate value for money and a
> reason for members to contribute more. There were two big ticket
> items, neither of which in my opinion advance the cause of NR one jot.
> A flashy webpage replete with glitzy automated tools might be seen as
> necessary by some, but if there are work arounds which do the same job
> and leave those funds intact, then that is fiscal prudence. Would you
> rather have corporate funds managed by people with a burning hole in
> their pocket, or those who want to see a real cost benefit analysis
> based on facts before the corporate wallet gets cracked open?
>
> Sound housekeeping or spending for the sake of 'doing' something
> regardless of cost?
>
> Vale bene
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
> Praetor
>
> ________________________________
> From: D. Cornelius Mento <decimuscorneliusmento@...
> <mailto:decimuscorneliusmento%40yahoo.it>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I'm a new citizen.
>
> Yahoo can host the basic website for 10 dollars US a month. Add the
> wiki pages, merchant services, chat forums, and email accounts for the
> citizens and you're talking maybe $70 US a month. They're bullet proof
> reliable and can do it all for a fee or help with the setup for
> nothing. I'm sure you can just upload the entire source code for
> NovaRoma.ORG and be done with it. Building your own IT infrastructure
> doesn't make sense. Plus they have support.
>
> I've been trying to log into NovaRoma.org and the wiki site since I've
> been granted citizenship and haven't been able to (if anyone can help,
> I'd appreciate it) I can get into the Civitas Album but that's it.
>
> As for paying taxes, I'd be reluctant until I see some sound financial
> planning coming from the Nova Roma government. This talk of coup,
> revolution, wild spending by Consuls and lack of an IT solution is
> keeping my wallet closed. Now I'm new and what I'm seeing may not be an
> accurate but my initial view is making me wobbly.
>
> There are other ways to generate funds then taxes. How about branding
> the site and selling things? I'd buy items with a NovaRoma logo it.
> How about minting a yearly challenge coin with the Consuls image that
> looks like a coin minted in Ancient Rome? *Nova Roma 2764 SPQNR!* I'd
> buy a few of those. There are a thousand ideas for alternate fund
> generation.
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> Decimus Cornelius Mento
>
> On 8/20/2011 11:18 AM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
> >
> > Cn Iulius Caesar Praetor sal.
> >
> > The "let's fix it" mania is what led to this situation in the first
> > place. As for not concentrating on the past, unless we look to what
> > was done, said, and what the actual facts are we are bound to repeat
> > the same mistakes. We were told the current system needs replacing.
> > Does it? Who knows? Currently the documentation, such as it is, is in
> > the hands of an ex-member who is releasing it in dribs and drabs.
> > There isn't to my knowledge any comprehensive manual for the IT system
> > because it was designed by one of our ex-members, who had the savvy to
> > carry it all in his head, which worked fine until he quit.
> >
> > Being 'told" our IT system is broken by people who most in the Senate
> > now wouldn't trust to tell them it was daylight outside, without
> > opening the drapes to check, isn't good enough. Once we have control
> > of our system fully, it can be independently assessed, brought back to
> > the US, so one of our few assets is in the country where NR is
> > incorporated (and thus more easily subject to the macronational legal
> > system being placed with a US based host), and based on that analysis
> > formulate a prognosis as to what is needed to make it operational. All
> > those wanting action to "fix" something we don't know for sure is
> > broken and the extent of the problem, would look pretty damned silly
> > after lashing out a huge whack of money only to find out with a few
> > tweaks the issues could have been fixed, if indeed there are any issues.
> >
> > The goal for NR is to end up with a system that can be maintained by
> > any citizen with no, or next to no, knowledge of IT. Let's plan for a
> > system that could be maintained by your average chimp, not one that
> > requires Einstein to run it. That way we won't be held hostage to the
> > whims of a few technocrats.
> >
> > Anything we spend isn't going to be replenished easily, and therefore
> > we have to know it is justified. "Know", not be "told" or believe, or
> > think or suspect - "know". That is the due diligence required of the
> > Senate and any Board of Directors.
> >
> > Optime valete
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> <mailto:robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.
> >
> > Metellus,
> >
> > You actually know better than that, because we have talked about
> it. What
> > use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to replenish those
> > funds?
> > You, with your banking and financial experience knows enough
> (because you
> > agreed with me in the past!) that without a sound plan wasting 10k is
> > absolutely insane. But hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and
> > carry the
> > liability of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people
> > that
> > I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over to.
> > Then
> > I can just complain about it without having my neck on the line when
> > an item
> > like that gets paid out and nothing really changes.
> >
> > YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time the
> item
> > was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual. Metellus,
> do you
> > take me for a fool, or those of my friends and allies in the Senate
> > that we
> > did not ask if there were other bids? Surely with your knowledge of
> > myself
> > and individuals like Caesar, Paulinus and others - that we voiced our
> > concerns...and even talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus -
> > while the Senate was meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was
> > addressed. Any other questions?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
> > q.caecilius.metellus@...
> <mailto:q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:q.caecilius.metellus%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum
> apud
> > > Quirites s.d.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well if you had a business background Livia the worst thing any
> > > > business can do is to spend money when it will take a long while to
> > > > replenish those funds. I have spelled out in the past that had NR
> > > > spent half of its funds on the IT....it would take many many years
> > > > before that money is replenished.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur. Livia did not, in the message to which
> > > the above is a response, make such a statement as that we should spend
> > > the entirety, or even half, or, in fact, any portion of the
> treasury on
> > > any specific 'project'. In point of fact, her statement was quite
> > > direct, and one with which I have to agree, if not by understanding
> > > consumer psychology then by simple logic. Paraphrased, her statement
> > > was to the effect that people are less willing to give when nothing
> > > will be gained from it.
> > >
> > > So, if we want people to give money, we have to make sure they get
> > > something in return. We want people to give money, give them, as C
> > > Valeria once noted, a welcome kit. We want people to give money, give
> > > them a website where the available features work more often than not.
> > > We want people to give money, show them, clearly and unquestionably,
> > > that the money is going to accomplish something.
> > >
> > > Plauta, I suspect, would be more than willing to correct me if I've
> > > misunderstood, but I gather that the above is, in concept, the point
> > > that was being made. If it comes to be the case that I've well
> > > understood her, I agree with her point entirely.
> > >
> > > Now, none of this needs to be terribly expensive either. If, for
> > > example, we set the membership rate at a (again, for example) flat 25
> > > (insert currency of choice), and in return for paying that fee, one
> > > got a subscription to an annual, semi-annual, or even quarterly
> journal
> > > of sorts that cost 5 (insert currency) for each subscription, we
> retain
> > > 80 percent of that donation. There are no shortage of things that can
> > > be done with this either. Aside from the membership package, sorts of
> > > membership cards, etc, there is quite truly no end to what else we
> > > could do. There have been, many times over the years, proposals for
> > > membership certificates/diplomas/et al., most recent to my mind coming
> > > from Ti Galerius. In itself, that could cost a mere pittance. Small
> > > flags, lapel pins, a few coins, whatever. The list goes endlessly.
> > >
> > > That, though, could not be the end of it. Sure, we can provide nice
> > > trinkets, but people have to see -- and more importantly, trust --
> that
> > > the remainder of the donation is going to something worthy. Of late,
> > > this has not been done, but my experience certainly leads me to more
> > > than just suspect that this is a contributing factor to our inability
> > > to acquire revenue. As someone who has, not infrequently, given money
> > > to various causes, one of the primary things I want to know, and want
> > > to be able to see, is where the money is going: I require knowing that
> > > the money is being put to (good) use. This is something at which Nova
> > > Roma has failed in the past, and continues to do so. But, it is
> > > something that we can change. It requires time, diligence, and most
> > > importantly, follow-through, but it can be done.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Spending 10k on a buddy of Quintilianus was not a wise investment -
> > > > nor was the proposal adequate to protect Nova Roma's best interest,
> > > > since there was no adequate checks or benchmarks to divide up the
> > > > funds based on a percentage of work. Nor was there any outside bids
> > > > to determine the feasibility of the work, nor was there adequate
> > > > means to determine if changes needed to be made to the original
> > > > agenda item. In other words, it was a piss poor proposal.
> > >
> > > Nevermind that the remainder of this train is as much a non
> sequitur as
> > > the opening paragraph, I'm going to have to ask what the point of this
> > > paragraph is other than to waste time beating on one you dislike.
> > > Sure, the work was to be performed by Mr From, who one can very
> > > reasonably assume was a friend to Quintilianus. I'll even grant you
> > > that there was room for a conflict of interest here, which should have
> > > been investigated. But as a senator, aside from voting against the
> > > proposal, did you state any of the above while the item was under
> > > consideration? Did you ask if there were other bids? If you asked, as
> > > I shall assmume you did, and the answer was that there were not, as I
> > > shall assume was the case, did you inquire as to why there were no
> > > other bids? Did you request that other bids be obtained and presented
> > > to the Senate before such time as might be a vote on the proposal? Did
> > > you attempt to acquire bids yourself? I pose these questions to you
> > > directly, Sulla, but they apply equally across the entirety of the
> > > Senate as it was at the time.
> > >
> > > --
> > > May you live in interesting times.
> > > -- Chinese proverb
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>

--



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Voluse.

Well that is the domain of the consuls, so I can tell you what I know or have been told, without wanting to steal their thunder, so to speak.

The website and tools are hosted outside of the US. The current consuls have been paying out of their own pockets to keep it up and running on the host site, due to corporate funds having been locked in limbo post the departure of former citizens (CFO included) and difficulties getting replacements on the account. Our current CFO can update on that in greater detail. 

The former CIO would only deal with one of the current consuls and the access codes to parts of the system have been slowly trickling in. That ex-CIO sits in a rival group (yes it is a rival one despite all the blather to the contrary) and has no vested interest in promptly helping NR - in fact the longer he can string this out the better it is for him and his tatty group of malcontents. There is no professionalism at work here that compels him to full and frank disclosure.

The current host had issues with the code as it had "security flaws". What they were who knows. i don't. No one was ever told. I suspect parts of the system were disabled to allow it to be hosted. So the 'breakage' may not be that, but more a disabling. 

Long term, well last year the junior consul had an 'analysis" done by the CIO I believe which concluded we had to throw it all in the bin and start again, to the cost of 10K. I have no document that actually lists the issues in a technical manner, and explains why a re-write is the ONLY solution. I don't think one exists. As regrettable as you may find it to dredge these things up, it is necessary to explain that a number of Senators were and are utterly opposed to signing off on that expenditure or anything like it, until we have proof this current system has gone the way of the dodo. Clearly parts of it are functioning, so it seems as though the argument was for it to be re-coded in a modern programming language. 

So briefly to conclude, the website/tools may or may not be broken. Until we are certain we have been given everything and can clearly get into the code, which I don't believe we yet can (the consuls will have to answer that as I don't want to speak for them in case there have been recent developments I am unaware of), then to me we cannot determine the issues. We won't get much sensible dialogue on a professional level with the ex-CIO in my estimation, so we have to get someone into the code.

Now, allowing someone into teh code also requires Senatorial sign off. This is a corporate asset. We can't let any Tom Dick or Harry root around in it, since there are liability issues and frankly after last year the idea that there is a risk it could be wiped out either accidentally or deliberately is a very real concern (and has to be re. corproate due diligence). So candidates for exploratory surgery on the damned thing can identify themselves, and names and qualifications can be put no doubt to the Senate, for a vote on who goes ion with the scapel and roots in its guts. That is necessary to protect the corporation, protect the Directors and protect the person performing the review on the code. 

Need more? Badger our Consuls. I'll drop them a line if they don't pick up on this and ask them to provide their 'official" response to Iulia.

Vale bene
Caesar


________________________________
From: V. Valerius Volusus <nykcowham@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: IT costs and off the self software.

Salve Caesar,

I think it would be helpful if you would answer Iulia Aquila's request
(Subject: Current IT Situation Update) and provide an outline of what is
currently in progress, the projected schedule etc. Ultimately every NR
citizen is a stakeholder in our web services - and if not all citizens, then
certainly those assidui are.

There are certainly calls to action - mine own included. However, that
doesn't mean that we expect things to be fixed like magic. We do expect that
the situation is being addressed, a reasonable plan has been or is being
developed, and then to be kept regularly informed with regard to progress on
the current initiatives. I think that is quite a reasonable request to make
to a public official who says: "We know the steps that have to be taken and
are working towards that goal." We just want to see the pudding :D

Vale optime!

Volusus.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve Voluse
>
> Currently we "know" (as opposed to being "told") squat about the real state
> of the current system, as firstly a lot of the access codes and basic
> commands are being only released to the current consuls in dribs and drabs,
> or no one knows. That's a by-product of last year and thus sadly the reality
> which must be discussed and explained, despite some finding it distasteful.
>
> Until NR regains full control of the system I am not voting one cent to a
> fix or repair until we have (ideally) an independent assessment that lists
> what is wrong. I am not relying on anything I have been "told" with little
> to no proof offered. Someone needs to get into the guts of the code and root
> around, and that can't be done until we have full control allowing us to do
> so.
>
> I want a simple effective system that does the job, that doesn't make us
> reliant on those with specialized knowledge and which doesn't bleed the
> Treasury dry. We know the steps that have to be taken and are working
> towards that goal.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
> ________________________________
> From: V. Valerius Volusus <nykcowham@...>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: IT costs and off the self software.
>
>
> Salve Caesar.
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> >  Salve Voluse.
> >
> > Your generous offer joins a list of those made by others with similar
> > qualifications through the years in Nova Roma, and who are no longer with
> > us. Were we to place all our IT needs in your hands to solve, that would
> > work well until you left NR or gave up on serving our IT needs. At that
> > point we have to scrabble around again.
> >
> You are assuming more than what I have actually offered. Did I not suggest
> some inexpensive VPS hosting that provide professional web administration
> dashboards (I'm certainly NOT offering to host NR website on my server!) I
> also suggested some open source CMS solutions that have no licensing fees
> and if properly configured allow non-technical people free-reign to update
> and manage content. You can go the COTS route, but you really don't have
> the
> budget for it unless you can raise additional funds (grants, etc). There
> really aren't any out-of-the-box products for building online republics.
> That means you need to be looking at flexible FOSS (free/open-source) CMS.
> However, whether commercial or open-source you will still need to think
> about information architecture, usability and ongoing maintenance planning:
> including the total cost of ownership. For a tiny membership organization
> you really can't afford to be turning down offers of free consultative
> services when you lucky enough for them to land in your lap.
>
> > The solution is to assess our real needs, determine what software exists
> > That can be both adapted to need and yet maintained with minimal
> technical
> > knowledge, how many of our tools need to be interactive and online.
> >
> I have already provided a few quick suggestions with that very view in
> mind.
> I certainly have no interest in building and maintaining software for NR or
> any other group that I'm involved with. To add to those I would also
> recommend NOT focusing on the technology (that is the easy part), but on
> the
> user experience and the "business model". For starters you would be well
> advised to do a comparator analysis - see what others are doing. A good
> candidate to look at would be Neos Alexandria (www.neosalexandria.com).
> They
> are quite comparable to NR's situation (a simple "citizen-based" website
> with Yahoo.com communities). That community is currently thriving and
> composing print devotional anthologies for sale on their website (all
> community-contributed content). There are some lessons to be learned there.
>
> Also, do you have a content inventory? Do you know what content is where
> (there seem to be some content not in the wiki, but older web pages). What
> is quality content, and what can be discarded? How do you decide and who
> decides?
>
> The golden rule is you don't build without a blueprint and a plan. You need
> to develop a web strategy, that is documented and freely available for
> review and comment. None of that takes technical expertise (though having a
> technical/professional resource to consult can be invaluable) - it's a
> leadership activity. It's all moot though, without any real leadership.
>
> > However, we may yet have to place our head again in the lions mouth, so
> > thank you for your offer.
> >
> Well, that assumes that your rather bitter rejection of help will be met
> with much sympathy when you find you might actually might need that help.
>
> Any way, good luck with all that.
>
> Vale bene
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Metellus Sullae sal.

> > > You actually know better than that, because we have talked about
> > > it. What use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to
> > > replenish those funds? You, with your banking and financial
> > > experience knows enough (because you agreed with me in the past!)
> > > that without a sound plan wasting 10k is absolutely insane. But
> > > hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and carry the liability
> > > of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people that
> > > I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over
> > > to. Then I can just complain about it without having my neck on
> > > the line when an item like that gets paid out and nothing really
> > > changes.
> >
> > Again, non sequitur. That's not even in the ballpark of what I've
> > addressed at all.
> >
>
>
> And your response is a non sequitur. It is specifically in the
> ballpark of my own discussion.

Fair enough point. It's in the ballpark of *your* discussion.

> > > YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time
> > > the item was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual.
> > > Metellus, do you take me for a fool, or those of my friends and
> > > allies in the Senate that we did not ask if there were other bids?
> > > Surely with your knowledge of myself and individuals like Caesar,
> > > Paulinus and others - that we voiced our concerns...and even
> > > talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus - while the
> > > Senate was meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was
> > > addressed. Any other questions?
> >
> > Yes, as a matter of fact. First, aside from the two fine individuals
> > you mentioned, did you seek opinions and bids from anyone else?
> >
>
> No time, because after a period of 2-3 days - the dictatorship and
> attempted coup was in full swing - remember the posts I forwarded
> from the senate list. All these items were on ONE SENATE CALL at the
> same time. And, once the (4) Tribunes and Caeso Fabius decided to
> implement their plan for a coup - everything else stopped while the
> coup attempt took precedence. Which I would hope you would agree was
> a more important matter.

Fair enough answer for me. That time and the machinations of others
prevented it is more than a reasonable enough answer.

> > What
> > were the responses? Were those presented to the Senate? How did the
> > Senate respond to them?
> >
>
> Beyond being ignored? I seem to recall an acquiescence that payments
> be broken up in 4 parts - every other concern was ignored. Even
> Maine law, which I believe Caesar illustrated how even giving funds
> to Octavius Pius violated Maine law.

So, the Senate responded to other bids by silence. Question answered.
Therefore, bids necessarily had to have been presented to the Senate.
Another question answered. Naturally, it remains that we've yet to see
what those other bids were, but this is all irrelevant to the more
important question, which you've later answered.

> > Second, would you be so kind as to answer the earlier, more
> > pertinent part of my original missive, which, for the sake of
> > bandwidth, I'll cut down to two sentences from it: "Paraphrased,
> > her statement was to the
> >
> > effect that people are less willing to give when nothing will be
> > gained from it. ... So, if we want people to give money, we have to
> > make sure they get something in return."
> >
>
> Right now, I will be honest, that is not my primary concern but the
> preservation of existing Nova Roma capital. I would think your
> question would best be addressed to the Aediles, and Consuls both who
> have jurisdictional authority over the marketplace and in Nova Roma
> government. I have given a few proposals to streamline the revenue
> for the marketplace - but they are with the Consuls. My role as CFO
> is primarily based on reporting to the Consuls and Controls of Nova
> Roma's financials to prevent issues like the MMP and ProDiis from
> happening again.
>
> I hope I answered your question - since you greatly assisted in
> co-authoring the CFO proposal agenda item which was adopted by the
> Senate.

As a matter of fact, that does answer things on this line. I've got
another question, but that's going to be another thread. Thank you!

--
Join in the new game that's sweeping the country. It's called
"Bureaucracy". Everybody stands in a circle. The first person to do
anything loses.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Metellus Sullae sal.
>
>
> > > > You actually know better than that, because we have talked about
> > > > it. What use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to
> > > > replenish those funds? You, with your banking and financial
> > > > experience knows enough (because you agreed with me in the past!)
> > > > that without a sound plan wasting 10k is absolutely insane. But
> > > > hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and carry the liability
> > > > of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people that
> > > > I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over
> > > > to. Then I can just complain about it without having my neck on
> > > > the line when an item like that gets paid out and nothing really
> > > > changes.
> > >
> > > Again, non sequitur. That's not even in the ballpark of what I've
> > > addressed at all.
> > >
> >
> >
> > And your response is a non sequitur. It is specifically in the
> > ballpark of my own discussion.
>
> Fair enough point. It's in the ballpark of *your* discussion.
>
>
> > > > YES I mentioned all of my reservations to the Senate at the time
> > > > the item was debated. It was for the most part ignored as usual.
> > > > Metellus, do you take me for a fool, or those of my friends and
> > > > allies in the Senate that we did not ask if there were other bids?
> > > > Surely with your knowledge of myself and individuals like Caesar,
> > > > Paulinus and others - that we voiced our concerns...and even
> > > > talked to Marcus Octavius as well...and Gualterus - while the
> > > > Senate was meeting at that time. So yes our due diligence was
> > > > addressed. Any other questions?
> > >
> > > Yes, as a matter of fact. First, aside from the two fine individuals
> > > you mentioned, did you seek opinions and bids from anyone else?
> > >
> >
> > No time, because after a period of 2-3 days - the dictatorship and
> > attempted coup was in full swing - remember the posts I forwarded
> > from the senate list. All these items were on ONE SENATE CALL at the
> > same time. And, once the (4) Tribunes and Caeso Fabius decided to
> > implement their plan for a coup - everything else stopped while the
> > coup attempt took precedence. Which I would hope you would agree was
> > a more important matter.
>
> Fair enough answer for me. That time and the machinations of others
> prevented it is more than a reasonable enough answer.
>
>
> > > What
> > > were the responses? Were those presented to the Senate? How did the
> > > Senate respond to them?
> > >
> >
> > Beyond being ignored? I seem to recall an acquiescence that payments
> > be broken up in 4 parts - every other concern was ignored. Even
> > Maine law, which I believe Caesar illustrated how even giving funds
> > to Octavius Pius violated Maine law.
>
> So, the Senate responded to other bids by silence. Question answered.
> Therefore, bids necessarily had to have been presented to the Senate.
> Another question answered. Naturally, it remains that we've yet to see
> what those other bids were, but this is all irrelevant to the more
> important question, which you've later answered.
>
>
>

Point of correction the Caeso Fabius presented NO OTHER BIDS. If I recall
correctly he said he flat out stated he did not seek out other bids. This
was his only choice for a solution of the IT issue.

Vale,

Sulla


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum s.d.

Quite some time ago you posted a call to this list (and a second call,
if memory serves), looking for volunteers to serve on a financial
committee. I know that, at that time, you did not get many responses
to that call. Has that changed? More generally, could you give a
status update on it?

--
It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
still to be a live lion. And usually easier.
-- Lazarus Long

Salve Metelle.
 
Let's be accurate. The Senate didn't respond to alternatives because the Senate votes on agenda items set by the presiding officer (normally 99.999% of the time one of the Consuls). Last year there wasn't enough votes to force the Junior Consul to abandon his plan and suggest a practical alternative. If you want to point fingers, then point them squarely at Quintilanus who was adamant that the only item IT wise he would discuss was the 10K solution. Albucius clashed with him over this and other matters (rightly so). The senate can't vote on items not on an agenda. You know that, and you know all of this about the IT issue anyway. You lived every moment of it in your house as it unfolded. Last year the voices of fiscal reason were 1/3 roughly of the Senate, and unable to push alternative solutions. That the Senate did nothing was a consequence of the vetoes, counter vetoes and the dictatorship coup unfolding, and neither consul able to break the
gridlock, nor putting alternatives or being able to command a majority to do so and pass them.

Vale
Caesar


________________________________
From: Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] IT costs and off the self software.

Metellus Sullae sal.

> > > You actually know better than that, because we have talked about
> > > it. What use is it to toss 10k away without any clear means to
> > > replenish those funds? You, with your banking and financial
> > > experience knows enough (because you agreed with me in the past!)
> > > that without a sound plan wasting 10k is absolutely insane. But
> > > hey, if you want to be CFO of Nova Roma and carry the liability
> > > of signing off on those funds, you are one of the few people that
> > > I would feel qualified enough to turning that responsibility over
> > > to. Then I can just complain about it without having my neck on
> > > the line when an item like that gets paid out and nothing really
> > > changes.
> >
> > Again, non sequitur. That's not even in the ballpark of what I've
> > addressed at all.
> >
>
>
> And your response is a non sequitur.  It is specifically in the
> ballpark of my own discussion.

Fair enough point.  It's in the ballpark of *your* discussion.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ave,

Nope no change. I think I have one volunteer. (I have the email saved in
my CFO folder).

Citizens, consider this a 3rd call for volunteers! If anyone wishes to
serve. To learn about the financial matters of the corporation. Who wishes
to put their time in service to a greater good. Please contact me. Any
background would be helpful, though if you have experience in fundraising,
not for profit experience, accounting experience, banking experience would
all be more than appreciated.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Q Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus L Cornelio Sullae legato ad aerarium curandum s.d.
>
> Quite some time ago you posted a call to this list (and a second call,
> if memory serves), looking for volunteers to serve on a financial
> committee. I know that, at that time, you did not get many responses
> to that call. Has that changed? More generally, could you give a
> status update on it?
>
> --
> It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
> still to be a live lion. And usually easier.
> -- Lazarus Long
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Q Caecilius Metellus Cn Iulio Caesari praetori s.d.

> Let's be accurate. The Senate didn't respond to alternatives because
> the Senate votes on agenda items set by the presiding officer
> (normally 99.999% of the time one of the Consuls).

Then, let's continue to be accurate. I'm not pointing fingers; I'm
asking questions. I didn't ask if the Senate voted on X, Y, or Z. We
know (or, generally, ought to know) the things on which the Senate has
voted, by the timely reports given us by the Tribunes. But it is also
within the ability of any senator to speak up and make a counter
proposal to something given in the Senate. I'm not asking if the
proposal was brought to a vote, I was asking if anyone made any such
counter-proposals, and attempting to ascertain the scope of said
proposals, if any were made. Thus, the line of inquiry.

--
Where do I find the time for not reading so many books?
-- Karl Kraus

Salve Caesar,

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
> Well that is the domain of the consuls, so I can tell you what I know or
> have been told, without wanting to steal their thunder, so to speak.
>

I appreciate you making the effort. As I already mentioned I really don't
have a clue who is actually responsible for leading us out of this IT hell
so forgive me if I seemed to be trying to put you on a spot where you don't
belong :D Is it the consuls or the Senate, or someone else? It's really
difficult to fix infrastructure when there isn't an "owner" as such.

> The website and tools are hosted outside of the US. The current consuls
> have been paying out of their own pockets to keep it up and running on the
> host site, due to corporate funds having been locked in limbo post the
> departure of former citizens (CFO included) and difficulties getting
> replacements on the account. Our current CFO can update on that in greater
> detail.
>
> The former CIO would only deal with one of the current consuls and the
> access codes to parts of the system have been slowly trickling in. That
> ex-CIO sits in a rival group (yes it is a rival one despite all the blather
> to the contrary) and has no vested interest in promptly helping NR - in fact
> the longer he can string this out the better it is for him and his tatty
> group of malcontents. There is no professionalism at work here that compels
> him to full and frank disclosure.
>
> The current host had issues with the code as it had "security flaws". What
> they were who knows. i don't. No one was ever told. I suspect parts of the
> system were disabled to allow it to be hosted. So the 'breakage' may not be
> that, but more a disabling.
>

Well if there are "security flaws" in the code, which if it's hand-rolled
custom scripts is very very likely, then any hosting provider might have
problems with you running that same code on their servers, depending on the
severity of the vulnerability and risk exposure. Even if you could find
someone to dig through the code and verify that it could be made to work
(i.e. is compatible with current server hosts) we are still left in a poor
situation of depending on undocumented custom-built code. Software is always
a liability never an asset, unless you are selling software.

Even if the old scripts could be made to work again it is still in our best
interests to reduce reliance on them. Better to migrate the site to a common
platform that has lots of user-community support, complete documentation,
etc. What is valuable to NR is our content, not the software used to present
it on a website.

> Long term, well last year the junior consul had an 'analysis" done by the
> CIO I believe which concluded we had to throw it all in the bin and start
> again, to the cost of 10K. I have no document that actually lists the issues
> in a technical manner, and explains why a re-write is the ONLY solution. I
> don't think one exists. As regrettable as you may find it to dredge these
> things up, it is necessary to explain that a number of Senators were and are
> utterly opposed to signing off on that expenditure or anything like it,
> until we have proof this current system has gone the way of the
> dodo. Clearly parts of it are functioning, so it seems as though the
> argument was for it to be re-coded in a modern programming language.
>

I would avoid any suggestions of re-coding at ALL. That just sticks us in
the same situation 10 years down the road. This years modern programming
language is next decades legacy system. There are other alternatives, like
migrating all the content to a new modular content management system (CMS)
like Drupal, Joomla, et al. However, maybe many of the systems used right
now are not necessary. We don't need to assume what was considered valuable
or necessary previously are still contributing anything to our experience of
NR.

> So briefly to conclude, the website/tools may or may not be broken. Until
> we are certain we have been given everything and can clearly get into the
> code, which I don't believe we yet can (the consuls will have to answer that
> as I don't want to speak for them in case there have been recent
> developments I am unaware of), then to me we cannot determine the issues. We
> won't get much sensible dialogue on a professional level with the ex-CIO in
> my estimation, so we have to get someone into the code.
>

But who is going to go "into the code"? That is going to cost money unless
there is a Perl programmer among the citizenry who is willing to volunteer
their time (I'm making an educated guess that it's written in Perl). Do we
really want to waste money paying for someone to confirm or lay a suspicion
to rest? Better, to chuck the code entirely and migrate the content in a
community system that is closer to an industry standard for content
management - or scale back our ambitions.

> Now, allowing someone into teh code also requires Senatorial sign off. This
> is a corporate asset. We can't let any Tom Dick or Harry root around in it,
> since there are liability issues and frankly after last year the idea that
> there is a risk it could be wiped out either accidentally or deliberately is
> a very real concern (and has to be re. corproate due diligence). So
> candidates for exploratory surgery on the damned thing can identify
> themselves, and names and qualifications can be put no doubt to the Senate,
> for a vote on who goes ion with the scapel and roots in its guts. That is
> necessary to protect the corporation, protect the Directors and protect the
> person performing the review on the code.
>

As I mentioned before software is always a liability and never an asset,
unless your a software company. Even if you invested thousands in it's
development that prior investment is a sunk cost. However, if you mean there
might be sensitive data in the code, that's just another reason it should be
abandoned.

I would say after 10-13 years we are probably due for a complete website
rethink, at this point. What do we REALLY need? What is nothing more than
cruft at this point, or too expensive to sustain at our current community
size?

> Need more? Badger our Consuls. I'll drop them a line if they don't pick up
> on this and ask them to provide their 'official" response to Iulia.
>

Thanks for your heroic effort at a response. Very much appreciated. I'll go
bug Cato now... I'm sure he'll be pleased :D

Vale bene

Volusus.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Valerianus Voluso S.P.D.

You wrote:

> But who is going to go "into the code"? That is going to cost money unless
> there is a Perl programmer among the citizenry who is willing to volunteer
> their time (I'm making an educated guess that it's written in Perl). Do we
> really want to waste money paying for someone to confirm or lay a suspicion
> to rest? Better, to chuck the code entirely and migrate the content in a
> community system that is closer to an industry standard for content
> management - or scale back our ambitions.
>
> Actually, the parts that are broken are in a custom-made system, called the

Baldrick Framework, invented by former citizen Octavius, Unfortunately, he
doesn't even support *that* for his paying customers, anymore - his
corporate clients have all been moved over to something like Perl, I guess.
As I understand it, there is not a human being on earth besides Octavius who
*really* knows Baldrick, because it was Octavius' invention. Which was fine
for the many long years when Octavius was supporting NR's IT - for free! -
but not so good now, when it no longer works and the expertise to repair it
does not exist outside of one man's head. That's the problem with the "make
no decisions until we look at the code" approach. No one really knows how.
We *do *have a clear reason to move the broken tools over to a more modern
system, at some point. It has to be done, eventually. It's just a matter of
when, by whom, and so forth.

Vale.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C. Petronius Dexter pontifex maximus C. Tullio Valeriano auguri s.p.d.,

The responsum that you made is interesting but is not supported with evidences nor scholar quotations. Something also is to think, we are not in Rome where it was possible in any moment to see an omen as birds or lightnings and asking to stop a Senate session or the comitia. We are on internet, so we have to make clear contract with the gods. When a Senate session is open and an agenda is decided under the auspices of the gods, if something changes we have to be sure that this change is propitious or not, the gods favorable or not.

Your responsum is the responsum of the collegium augurum, as you wrote at the end of it, but how many augurs were with you to make this responsum? If I am not wrong you are the one augur of Nova Roma, I think that a collegium is more than one.

Finally, even if your responsum is interesting and may be respected, your tribune report is not right because you counted as votes expressed votes sent after the deadline. I recall you the last schedule posted by the consul C. Equitius on Saturday 14 May.

>Cato omnibus in senatu SPD
> In order to clarify the situation regarding voting in this House, the following
> applies:
> VOTING shall begin at SUNRISE (CET) tomorrow, Id. Mai.;
> it will be
> SUSPENDED from SUNRISE (CET) to SUNSET on a.d. XVII Kal. Iun., as it is a dies
> fastus aterque;
> it will RESUME at SUNRISE on a.d. XVI Kal. Iun and
> CONCLUDE at SUNSET on a.d. XIV Kal. Iun.
> Valete bene, Cato

As you see the situation was not clear and sunset (CET) on a. d. XIV Kal. Iun. (19 May) was at 20:26 (Rome time).

So the votes of Ti. Paulinus, Tullia Scholastica, Q. Fabius Maximus and C. Vipsanius Agrippa sent after this time cannot be counted as you did it.

So it should be more interesting for the New Romans reading of this report, to write the true dates of this session, its delays too and the deadline with the votes really sent before it.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XIV Kalendas Septembres P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Metelle.

Senators spoke up, myself included. I peraonally made at least two alternative suggestions, all ignored naturally. Others made suggestions too.

Anything else?

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Cn Iulio Caesari praetori s.d.
>
> > Let's be accurate. The Senate didn't respond to alternatives because
> > the Senate votes on agenda items set by the presiding officer
> > (normally 99.999% of the time one of the Consuls).
>
> Then, let's continue to be accurate. I'm not pointing fingers; I'm
> asking questions. I didn't ask if the Senate voted on X, Y, or Z. We
> know (or, generally, ought to know) the things on which the Senate has
> voted, by the timely reports given us by the Tribunes. But it is also
> within the ability of any senator to speak up and make a counter
> proposal to something given in the Senate. I'm not asking if the
> proposal was brought to a vote, I was asking if anyone made any such
> counter-proposals, and attempting to ascertain the scope of said
> proposals, if any were made. Thus, the line of inquiry.
>
> --
> Where do I find the time for not reading so many books?
> -- Karl Kraus
>

Salve Voluse.

Always the Consuls have primary responsibility, for good or ill. goes with possession of the big pointy hat. Practically though they can do little more than wait for this information to be divulged. I'll be glad myself of an update from them re. Where we are with that goal.

in a broad sense it makes no sense to me to invest large amounts of time and money in building some flamboyant system some parts of which may not be necessary to have proprietary routines for. Much like you are saying (I think) I'd value the opportunity to look at the old IT package and ask was this part a "must have" or a "would be nice to have" ability? No sacred cows and not being too proud to use simpler systems.

I too would like to move past this matter, but I want the solution to be something practical, relevant in the short to medium term (based on likely population numbers) to Nova Roma, and as cheap as possible. Most prospective citizens will see the outfacing webpage and be attracted by that, or at least curious enough to explore more. Whether we have a custom designed system or a series of systems, commercially available and adapted, working away behind the scenes won't be a concern likely to them.

I also want it as simple as possible so even Scholastica could maintain it. If we plan for the lowest common denominator, technically speaking, then we will be on the right track to avoid being held hostage by a few gifted individuals who understand such matters, or being left in the lurch by them when they flounce out the door of NR in a huff (justified or not). We MUST plan to avoid such dislocations in the future. Any proposed new system that involves a complex or intensive level of knowledge to maintain it should be tossed in the bin as far as I am concerned.

The KISS principle.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "V. Valerius Volusus" <nykcowham@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> > Well that is the domain of the consuls, so I can tell you what I know or
> > have been told, without wanting to steal their thunder, so to speak.
> >
>
> I appreciate you making the effort. As I already mentioned I really don't
> have a clue who is actually responsible for leading us out of this IT hell
> so forgive me if I seemed to be trying to put you on a spot where you don't
> belong :D Is it the consuls or the Senate, or someone else? It's really
> difficult to fix infrastructure when there isn't an "owner" as such.
>
> > The website and tools are hosted outside of the US. The current consuls
> > have been paying out of their own pockets to keep it up and running on the
> > host site, due to corporate funds having been locked in limbo post the
> > departure of former citizens (CFO included) and difficulties getting
> > replacements on the account. Our current CFO can update on that in greater
> > detail.
> >
> > The former CIO would only deal with one of the current consuls and the
> > access codes to parts of the system have been slowly trickling in. That
> > ex-CIO sits in a rival group (yes it is a rival one despite all the blather
> > to the contrary) and has no vested interest in promptly helping NR - in fact
> > the longer he can string this out the better it is for him and his tatty
> > group of malcontents. There is no professionalism at work here that compels
> > him to full and frank disclosure.
> >
> > The current host had issues with the code as it had "security flaws". What
> > they were who knows. i don't. No one was ever told. I suspect parts of the
> > system were disabled to allow it to be hosted. So the 'breakage' may not bez
> > that, but more a disabling.
> >
> Well if there are "security flaws" in the code, which if it's hand-rolled
> custom scripts is very very likely, then any hosting provider might have
> problems with you running that same code on their servers, depending on the
> severity of the vulnerability and risk exposure. Even if you could find
> someone to dig through the code and verify that it could be made to work
> (i.e. is compatible with current server hosts) we are still left in a poor
> situation of depending on undocumented custom-built code. Software is always
> a liability never an asset, unless you are selling software.
>
> Even if the old scripts could be made to work again it is still in our best
> interests to reduce reliance on them. Better to migrate the site to a commonz
> platform that has lots of user-community support, complete documentation,
> etc. What is valuable to NR is our content, not the software used to present
> it on a website.
> zz
> > Long term, well last year the junior consul had an 'analysis" done by the
> > CIO I believe which concluded we had to throw it all in the bin and start
> > again, to the cost of 10K. I have no document that actually lists the issues
> > in a technical manner, and explains why a re-write is the ONLY solution. I
> > don't think one exists. As regrettable as you may find it to dredge these
> > things up, it is necessary to explain that a number of Senators were and are
> > utterly opposed to signing off on that expenditure or anything like it,
> > until we have proof this current system has gone the way of the
> > dodo. Clearly parts of it are functioning, so it seems as though the
> > argument was for it to be re-coded in a modern programming language.
> >
> I would avoid any suggestions of re-coding at ALL. That just sticks us in
> the same situation 10 years down the road. This years modern programming
> language is next decades legacy system. There are other alternatives, like
> migrating all the content to a new modular content management system (CMS)
> like Drupal, Joomla, et al. However, maybe many of the systems used right
> now are not necessary. We don't need to assume what was considered valuable
> or necessary previously are still contributing anything to our experience of
> NR.
>
> > So briefly to conclude, the website/tools may or may not be broken. Until
> > we are certain we have been given everything and can clearly get into the
> > code, which I don't believe we yet can (the consuls will have to answer that
> > as I don't want to speak for them in case there have been recent
> > developments I am unaware of), then to me we cannot determine the issues. We
> > won't get much sensible dialogue on a professional level with the ex-CIO in
> > my estimation, so we have to get someone into the code.
> >
> But who is going to go "into the code"? That is going to cost money unless
> there is a Perl programmer among the citizenry who is willing to volunteer
> their time (I'm making an educated guess that it's written in Perl). Do we
> really want to waste money paying for someone to confirm or lay a suspicion
> to rest? Better, to chuck the code entirely and migrate the content in a
> community system that is closer to an industry standard for content
> management - or scale back our ambitions.
>
> > Now, allowing someone into teh code also requires Senatorial sign off. This
> > is a corporate asset. We can't let any Tom Dick or Harry root around in it,
> > since there are liability issues and frankly after last year the idea that
> > there is a risk it could be wiped out either accidentally or deliberately is
> > a very real concern (and has to be re. corproate due diligence). So
> > candidates for exploratory surgery on the damned thing can identify
> > themselves, and names and qualifications can be put no doubt to the Senate,
> > for a vote on who goes ion with the scapel and roots in its guts. That is
> > necessary to protect the corporation, protect the Directors and protect the
> > person performing the review on the code.
> >
> As I mentioned before software is always a liability and never an asset,
> unless your a software company. Even if you invested thousands in it's
> development that prior investment is a sunk cost. However, if you mean there
> might be sensitive data in the code, that's just another reason it should be
> abandoned.
>
> I would say after 10-13 years we are probably due for a complete website
> rethink, at this point. What do we REALLY need? What is nothing more than
> cruft at this point, or too expensive to sustain at our current community
> size?
>
> > Need more? Badger our Consuls. I'll drop them a line if they don't pick up
> > on this and ask them to provide their 'official" response to Iulia.
> >
> Thanks for your heroic effort at a response. Very much appreciated. I'll go
> bug Cato now... I'm sure he'll be pleased :D
>
> Vale bene
>
> Volusus.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Julio Caesari quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Having been offline involuntarily, I am catching up, but will do this post
> in reverse order.
>
>
> Salve Voluse.
>
> Always the Consuls have primary responsibility, for good or ill. goes with
> possession of the big pointy hat. Practically though they can do little more
> than wait for this information to be divulged. I'll be glad myself of an
> update from them re. Where we are with that goal.
>
> in a broad sense it makes no sense to me to invest large amounts of time and
> money in building some flamboyant system some parts of which may not be
> necessary to have proprietary routines for. Much like you are saying (I think)
> I'd value the opportunity to look at the old IT package and ask was this part
> a "must have" or a "would be nice to have" ability? No sacred cows and not
> being too proud to use simpler systems.
>
> ATS: And that would mean what? Dispensing with the creaking censorial
> database and censorial tools instead of fixing them because you don¹t want
> censors? Gee, why do anything correctly when we can make up pretend Roman
> names (as some reenactors do) and not follow ancient practices? Why not have
> pretend gentes in an ahistoric system, as was the case when the Former Boni
> were ascendant? Well, because we know better, that¹s why. Do it that way,
> the anti-intellectual Boni way, and be the butt of more jokes in academia. Of
> course, you don¹t care...
>
> I too would like to move past this matter, but I want the solution to be
> something practical, relevant in the short to medium term (based on likely
> population numbers)
>
> ATS: The way we are heading, there won¹t be many more members than reside
> in Sulla¹s house.
>
>
> to Nova Roma, and as cheap as possible. Most prospective citizens will see the
> outfacing webpage and be attracted by that, or at least curious enough to
> explore more. Whether we have a custom designed system or a series of systems,
> commercially available and adapted, working away behind the scenes won't be a
> concern likely to them.
>
> I also want it as simple as possible so even Scholastica could maintain it.
>
> ATS: I hate to disappoint you and your buds on this, Caesar, but it
> happens that I work virtually every day with a complicated CMS system. I
> register students, some of whom do not know any language I can read or speak,
> I present lessons and other materials, I upload lessons, pictures, corrected
> homework and tests, answer questions, etc., etc. I am not stupid, merely
> blonde. I therefore have more competence in these matters than you might
> suspect. Moreover, despite remarks made by one of your pals, I do not have
> Alzheimer¹s disease, nor does / did anyone in my family, nor does
> chronological age correlate with physiological age, etc., etc. I might add
> that my age is none of your business, or that of any of your buddies. Ditto
> that of any citizen other than the tirones, who must be at least 18 unless
> they are the children of an existing citizen.
>
>
> If we plan for the lowest common denominator, technically speaking, then we
> will be on the right track to avoid being held hostage by a few gifted
> individuals who understand such matters, or being left in the lurch by them
> when they flounce out the door of NR in a huff (justified or not). We MUST
> plan to avoid such dislocations in the future. Any proposed new system that
> involves a complex or intensive level of knowledge to maintain it should be
> tossed in the bin as far as I am concerned.
>
> ATS: We have at least two citizens who have volunteered to assist with IT
> issues...for free. Yunno, Caesar, if certain parties weren¹t so damn
> obnoxious, more people would stick around and work for NR.
>
> The KISS principle.
>
> ATS: Probably works with defibrillators and such...but maybe not software
> coding. While I don¹t represent the least common denominator in such skills
> (as you believe), I also see no reason why we should play to that. Those who
> are too dense to refrain from using the hairdryer while in the shower or tub
> might be too dense to be worthy of other attributes, as a certain Carolus
> noted. These things should be the domain of those with some expertise in the
> field...unless, of course, you also like having your brain surgeon taken from
> the ranks of fourth-grade dropouts.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
> Vale et valete bene.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "V.
> Valerius Volusus" <nykcowham@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Salve Caesar,
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
>> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>> >
>>> > > **
>>> > > Well that is the domain of the consuls, so I can tell you what I know or
>>> > > have been told, without wanting to steal their thunder, so to speak.
>>> > >
>> >
>> > I appreciate you making the effort. As I already mentioned I really don't
>> > have a clue who is actually responsible for leading us out of this IT hell
>> > so forgive me if I seemed to be trying to put you on a spot where you don't
>> > belong :D Is it the consuls or the Senate, or someone else? It's really
>> > difficult to fix infrastructure when there isn't an "owner" as such.
>> >
>>> > > The website and tools are hosted outside of the US. The current consuls
>>> > > have been paying out of their own pockets to keep it up and running on

the

>>> > > host site, due to corporate funds having been locked in limbo post the
>>> > > departure of former citizens (CFO included) and difficulties getting
>>> > > replacements on the account. Our current CFO can update on that in
>>> greater
>>> > > detail.
>>> > >
>>> > > The former CIO would only deal with one of the current consuls and the
>>> > > access codes to parts of the system have been slowly trickling in. That
>>> > > ex-CIO sits in a rival group (yes it is a rival one despite all the
>>> blather
>>> > > to the contrary) and has no vested interest in promptly helping NR - in
>>> fact
>>> > > the longer he can string this out the better it is for him and his tatty
>>> > > group of malcontents. There is no professionalism at work here that
>>> compels
>>> > > him to full and frank disclosure.
>>> > >
>>> > > The current host had issues with the code as it had "security flaws".
>>> What
>>> > > they were who knows. i don't. No one was ever told. I suspect parts of

the

>>> > > system were disabled to allow it to be hosted. So the 'breakage' may not

bez

>>> > > that, but more a disabling.
>>> > >
>> > Well if there are "security flaws" in the code, which if it's hand-rolled
>> > custom scripts is very very likely, then any hosting provider might have
>> > problems with you running that same code on their servers, depending on the
>> > severity of the vulnerability and risk exposure. Even if you could find
>> > someone to dig through the code and verify that it could be made to work
>> > (i.e. is compatible with current server hosts) we are still left in a poor
>> > situation of depending on undocumented custom-built code. Software is
>> always
>> > a liability never an asset, unless you are selling software.
>> >
>> > Even if the old scripts could be made to work again it is still in our best
>> > interests to reduce reliance on them. Better to migrate the site to a
>> commonz
>> > platform that has lots of user-community support, complete documentation,
>> > etc. What is valuable to NR is our content, not the software used to
>> present
>> > it on a website.
>> > zz
>>> > > Long term, well last year the junior consul had an 'analysis" done by

the

>>> > > CIO I believe which concluded we had to throw it all in the bin and >>>

start

>>> > > again, to the cost of 10K. I have no document that actually lists the
>>> issues
>>> > > in a technical manner, and explains why a re-write is the ONLY solution.

I

>>> > > don't think one exists. As regrettable as you may find it to dredge >>>

these

>>> > > things up, it is necessary to explain that a number of Senators were and

are

>>> > > utterly opposed to signing off on that expenditure or anything like it,
>>> > > until we have proof this current system has gone the way of the
>>> > > dodo. Clearly parts of it are functioning, so it seems as though the
>>> > > argument was for it to be re-coded in a modern programming language.
>>> > >
>> > I would avoid any suggestions of re-coding at ALL. That just sticks us in
>> > the same situation 10 years down the road. This years modern programming
>> > language is next decades legacy system. There are other alternatives, like
>> > migrating all the content to a new modular content management system (CMS)
>> > like Drupal, Joomla, et al. However, maybe many of the systems used right
>> > now are not necessary. We don't need to assume what was considered valuable
>> > or necessary previously are still contributing anything to our experience
>> of
>> > NR.
>> >
>>> > > So briefly to conclude, the website/tools may or may not be broken. >>>

Until

>>> > > we are certain we have been given everything and can clearly get into

the

>>> > > code, which I don't believe we yet can (the consuls will have to answer
>>> that
>>> > > as I don't want to speak for them in case there have been recent
>>> > > developments I am unaware of), then to me we cannot determine the
>>> issues. We
>>> > > won't get much sensible dialogue on a professional level with the ex-CIO

in

>>> > > my estimation, so we have to get someone into the code.
>>> > >
>> > But who is going to go "into the code"? That is going to cost money unless
>> > there is a Perl programmer among the citizenry who is willing to volunteer
>> > their time (I'm making an educated guess that it's written in Perl). Do we
>> > really want to waste money paying for someone to confirm or lay a suspicion
>> > to rest? Better, to chuck the code entirely and migrate the content in a
>> > community system that is closer to an industry standard for content
>> > management - or scale back our ambitions.
>> >
>>> > > Now, allowing someone into teh code also requires Senatorial sign off.
>>> This
>>> > > is a corporate asset. We can't let any Tom Dick or Harry root around in

it,

>>> > > since there are liability issues and frankly after last year the idea
>>> that
>>> > > there is a risk it could be wiped out either accidentally or
>>> deliberately is
>>> > > a very real concern (and has to be re. corproate due diligence). So
>>> > > candidates for exploratory surgery on the damned thing can identify
>>> > > themselves, and names and qualifications can be put no doubt to the
>>> Senate,
>>> > > for a vote on who goes ion with the scapel and roots in its guts. That

is

>>> > > necessary to protect the corporation, protect the Directors and protect

the

>>> > > person performing the review on the code.
>>> > >
>> > As I mentioned before software is always a liability and never an asset,
>> > unless your a software company. Even if you invested thousands in it's
>> > development that prior investment is a sunk cost. However, if you mean
>> there
>> > might be sensitive data in the code, that's just another reason it should
>> be
>> > abandoned.
>> >
>> > I would say after 10-13 years we are probably due for a complete website
>> > rethink, at this point. What do we REALLY need? What is nothing more than
>> > cruft at this point, or too expensive to sustain at our current community
>> > size?
>> >
>>> > > Need more? Badger our Consuls. I'll drop them a line if they don't pick

up

>>> > > on this and ask them to provide their 'official" response to Iulia.
>>> > >
>> > Thanks for your heroic effort at a response. Very much appreciated. I'll go
>> > bug Cato now... I'm sure he'll be pleased :D
>> >
>> > Vale bene
>> >
>> > Volusus.
>> >
>> >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Cornelio Lentulo quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Lentulus omnibus sal.
>
> I don't want to waste my time on this discussion since I have explained my
> point of view several times in this and other mailing lists already. But as
> one of the many citizens who applauded the idea of appointing Marinus as
> dictator, I feel it's my moral obligation to comment and to repeat again that
> what happened last year it was NOT a "coup", and it is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS,
> PRETENTIOUS, AND POMPOUS to call it a "coup". But, of course, all of us must
> have the right to use the word which fits his taste.
>
> ATS: It¹s totally idiotic, but what the hey, to some of us, black is
> white and white is black.
>
> I, Scholastica, Livia - and I know that many other citizens - don't think that
> an appointment of a constitutional dictator can be labeled as a "coup",
> especially when it is done in a very serious crisis: exactly in a situation
> for what it is invented by our Constitution as a means of solution.
>
> ATS: Exactly. Some, too, misunderstand the nature of a ROMAN
> dictatorship vs. a modern one. The latter are very different, and hardly
> desirable.
>
> I don't exactly know what Scholastica or Livia exactly think, but for me what
> happened last year was an attempt to save Nova Roma from the ongoing chaos by
> appointing a dictator, a very legal, constitutional and Roman thing, and it
> was initially supported by all senators except 1-2, later still by the
> overwhelming majority. Almost everyone wanted the dictator.
>
> ATS: Yes. The government was paralyzed (of course to some, that it just
> fine), and those of us who are sensible thought that drastic measures were
> needed to move things off dead center.
>
> Was this dictator election a pre-organized political action? OF COURSE it was,
> it had to be, as all well-thought-out political actions are pre-organized and
> conscious actions. I have presonally and repeatedly advocated for appointing a
> dictator in this very same mailing list since the beginning of the decline of
> NR. Many citizens trusted Marinus and I still think that he was an example of
> leadership, and he as a senior consular and esteemed senator could have
> introduced the necessary reforms into NR. For our detriment, and ever growing
> stagnation, he was not appointed as dictator and NR is today where it is. Only
> if we had Marinus as dictator!... I think we were light years ahead today as
> compared to this dead frozen state in which NR stagnates without leadership...
>
> ATS: Indeed. There is no leadership, no government, just office holders
> who do little or nothing. Aeternia seems to be the only magistrate of this
> year who has done much, and of course Sabinus fulfills his duties admirably.
> Where are the rest of them? We don¹t even have magistrates to fill in for
> those who resigned or became CC and ineligible.
>
> So, what some very colorfully call a "coup d'etate", is viewed by many others
> as a heroic attempt to save Nova Roma from the
> internal warrings, stagnation and decline, using the constitutional option
> appointing a person trusted by most people as dictator.
>
> Unfortunately, the organizers of this dictator election committed an error -
> and this is why I must accept that the appointment was indeed not regular,
> thus not completely lawful.
>
> Why?
>
> The dictator election attempt was executed using legally questionable means,
> i.e. circumventing Albucius' consular veto by Consul Quintilianus' convening
> the senate jointly with the tribunes, which was (and still is) a matter of
> debate whether it is legal or illegal, but the debate was officially concluded
> by the rest of tribunes as illegal - though there are numerous theoretical
> objections. I, as a law respecting citizen, accepted the veto of the tribunes,
> and I still don't question the outcome: the dictator was vetoed. Cn. Marinus
> Censorius dictator-elect accepted it too. No dictator entered office.
>
> That the dictator election failed it was a tragedy, because I firmly
> beleive that Marinus as dictator could have stoped the stagnation of
> Nova Roma, could have solved our many technical and organizational
> problems including our IT problems immediately. Since then very few
> improvements was made on NR, and today it seems clearer than ever that
> the need for the dictator was fully justified.
>
> Rectissimé!
>
> As for the featuring of a dictatorial appointment as a "coup d'etat", it is
> exaggerating, idiotic and pompous. What was, however, and still is a proper
> question regarding those events it is whether the consul can convene a senate
> session jointly by the tribunes or not. As it came out Nova Roma did not
> accept that legal approach, and thus the dictator was not deemed elected
> properly.
>
> So, accept that facts:
>
> 1) the dictator is a normal and legal solution in NR's constitution for
> handling crises;
> 2) many Nova Romans and senators wanted that dictator to handle the crisis of
> last year;
> 3) the intention and purpose with the dictator was legal since the institution
> itself is a legal NR institution;
> 4) the authority which was appointing it was legal since it's the prerogative
> of the senate, and it was the senate which was electing Marinus;
> 5) HOWEVER, the way of convening the senate (a consul JOINTLY with the
> tribunes) was dubious, and some accepted it as a legal way of convening the
> senate, since our laws did not prohibit it, some thought that it was not
> provided by our laws as an option because our laws did not explicitely allow
> it.
> 6) This way the whole business of appointing the dictator came to a legalistic
> dispute where the other consul and the other tribunes vetoed it, and finally
> Marinus himself declined the position.
>
> End of the story.
>
> Some are now convinced that Marinus as a dictator would have done tyrannic
> actions. Many others are convinced that Marinus would have been a true healer
> of our illnesses and a fair and just leader. Since Marinus has never been
> installed as dictator all what goes beyond the facts are mere fantasy.
>
> ATS: Those of us who know Marinus are well aware that he would not have
> done any harm. During his consulate, he had to step in for both praetores and
> his consular colleague, and nothing bad happened, whatever the Sullan faction
> might believe. They suffer from paranoia, and believe that anyone who does
> not share their views is innately evil, much like those 8th century hangovers
> in the muddle east (as some wags call it), where the US is the Great Satan and
> marj bar Amrika (death to America) is the watchword.
>
>
>
> I personally am most convinced that Marinus would have never wanted
> confrontation with the law, consequently he as dictator would have worked for
> the benefit of all of NR.
>
> ATS: And I share your view...with the advantage of having met Marinus
> several times, as you have not, and of having had a long correspondence with
> him years ago.
>
> However, it is not the point of my message. The point of my message is the
> following:
>
> We can say that the dictator election was halted and the details of the
> procedure of convoking the session deemed irregular; BUT no one with sane
> judgement can call it a "coup d'etat" since the dictator, appointed by the
> senate, is a LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and lawful institution in the NR
> Constitution. It can not be called a "coup" what is constitutional.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
> All legal criteria were satisfied, except the bit with the joint
> consular-trinunicial convoking of the senate session, which is a matter of law
> interpretation, since it is not explicitely forbidden. Moreover, when it was
> vetoed, the whole procedure was terminated, and the dictator was not
> installed: consequently no law was violated.
>
> The conclusion is this: neither Scholastica, nor Livia, nor I are denying that
> SOMETHING happaned last year. And I AM confirming that what happened then it
> was legally problematic. But what I am saying with Scholatica and with others,
> it is that an office which is constitutional can not be called a "coup".
>
> Indeed. Paranoia doth distort the thinking, however.
>
> I will not discuss this topic again: in the archieves you will find my full
> arguing among the old posts. I know that if you carefully think on the things
> what I have written, you will see that there is no justification to call last
> year events as a "coup". So there can not be a justified difference of
> opinion, unless one is driven purely emotionally against the whole issue.
> Where our opinions can, however, differ in the greatest extent it is whether
> the intention with the dictator was good or bad. But it is to decide for each
> citizen individually, since the dictatorship, as it came out, never started
> on.
>
> And what did not happen cannot be labeled as if it had happened in any
> case...but some have these problems, just as others have. This is a matter of
> definitions. Bill Clinton had some problems with them as regards certain
> activities with a certain Monica, and many share these difficulties when
> normal definitions aren¹t quite what they would like. Things get distorted to
> fit preconceived views.
>

Vale, et valete.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete

Nova Roman faced no "Hannibal at the gates" to justify a Dictator. Please remember that even the
Romans dispensed with the office until it was revised by Sulla and then Caesar.

The Dictatorship faded from Roman history and was replaced by the SCU, Senatus consultum ultimum
which empower BOTH consul to do a certain task or solve a certain problem.

Valete

Ti. Galerius Paulinus







To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: fororom@...
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 05:02:55 -0400
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] No coup? O Rly?

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Cornelio Lentulo quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Lentulus omnibus sal.
>
> I don't want to waste my time on this discussion since I have explained my
> point of view several times in this and other mailing lists already. But as
> one of the many citizens who applauded the idea of appointing Marinus as
> dictator, I feel it's my moral obligation to comment and to repeat again that
> what happened last year it was NOT a "coup", and it is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS,
> PRETENTIOUS, AND POMPOUS to call it a "coup". But, of course, all of us must
> have the right to use the word which fits his taste.
>
> ATS: It�s totally idiotic, but what the hey, to some of us, black is
> white and white is black.
>
> I, Scholastica, Livia - and I know that many other citizens - don't think that
> an appointment of a constitutional dictator can be labeled as a "coup",
> especially when it is done in a very serious crisis: exactly in a situation
> for what it is invented by our Constitution as a means of solution.
>
> ATS: Exactly. Some, too, misunderstand the nature of a ROMAN
> dictatorship vs. a modern one. The latter are very different, and hardly
> desirable.
>
> I don't exactly know what Scholastica or Livia exactly think, but for me what
> happened last year was an attempt to save Nova Roma from the ongoing chaos by
> appointing a dictator, a very legal, constitutional and Roman thing, and it
> was initially supported by all senators except 1-2, later still by the
> overwhelming majority. Almost everyone wanted the dictator.
>
> ATS: Yes. The government was paralyzed (of course to some, that it just
> fine), and those of us who are sensible thought that drastic measures were
> needed to move things off dead center.
>
> Was this dictator election a pre-organized political action? OF COURSE it was,
> it had to be, as all well-thought-out political actions are pre-organized and
> conscious actions. I have presonally and repeatedly advocated for appointing a
> dictator in this very same mailing list since the beginning of the decline of
> NR. Many citizens trusted Marinus and I still think that he was an example of
> leadership, and he as a senior consular and esteemed senator could have
> introduced the necessary reforms into NR. For our detriment, and ever growing
> stagnation, he was not appointed as dictator and NR is today where it is. Only
> if we had Marinus as dictator!... I think we were light years ahead today as
> compared to this dead frozen state in which NR stagnates without leadership...
>
> ATS: Indeed. There is no leadership, no government, just office holders
> who do little or nothing. Aeternia seems to be the only magistrate of this
> year who has done much, and of course Sabinus fulfills his duties admirably.
> Where are the rest of them? We don�t even have magistrates to fill in for
> those who resigned or became CC and ineligible.
>
> So, what some very colorfully call a "coup d'etate", is viewed by many others
> as a heroic attempt to save Nova Roma from the
> internal warrings, stagnation and decline, using the constitutional option
> appointing a person trusted by most people as dictator.
>
> Unfortunately, the organizers of this dictator election committed an error -
> and this is why I must accept that the appointment was indeed not regular,
> thus not completely lawful.
>
> Why?
>
> The dictator election attempt was executed using legally questionable means,
> i.e. circumventing Albucius' consular veto by Consul Quintilianus' convening
> the senate jointly with the tribunes, which was (and still is) a matter of
> debate whether it is legal or illegal, but the debate was officially concluded
> by the rest of tribunes as illegal - though there are numerous theoretical
> objections. I, as a law respecting citizen, accepted the veto of the tribunes,
> and I still don't question the outcome: the dictator was vetoed. Cn. Marinus
> Censorius dictator-elect accepted it too. No dictator entered office.
>
> That the dictator election failed it was a tragedy, because I firmly
> beleive that Marinus as dictator could have stoped the stagnation of
> Nova Roma, could have solved our many technical and organizational
> problems including our IT problems immediately. Since then very few
> improvements was made on NR, and today it seems clearer than ever that
> the need for the dictator was fully justified.
>
> Rectissim�!
>
> As for the featuring of a dictatorial appointment as a "coup d'etat", it is
> exaggerating, idiotic and pompous. What was, however, and still is a proper
> question regarding those events it is whether the consul can convene a senate
> session jointly by the tribunes or not. As it came out Nova Roma did not
> accept that legal approach, and thus the dictator was not deemed elected
> properly.
>
> So, accept that facts:
>
> 1) the dictator is a normal and legal solution in NR's constitution for
> handling crises;
> 2) many Nova Romans and senators wanted that dictator to handle the crisis of
> last year;
> 3) the intention and purpose with the dictator was legal since the institution
> itself is a legal NR institution;
> 4) the authority which was appointing it was legal since it's the prerogative
> of the senate, and it was the senate which was electing Marinus;
> 5) HOWEVER, the way of convening the senate (a consul JOINTLY with the
> tribunes) was dubious, and some accepted it as a legal way of convening the
> senate, since our laws did not prohibit it, some thought that it was not
> provided by our laws as an option because our laws did not explicitely allow
> it.
> 6) This way the whole business of appointing the dictator came to a legalistic
> dispute where the other consul and the other tribunes vetoed it, and finally
> Marinus himself declined the position.
>
> End of the story.
>
> Some are now convinced that Marinus as a dictator would have done tyrannic
> actions. Many others are convinced that Marinus would have been a true healer
> of our illnesses and a fair and just leader. Since Marinus has never been
> installed as dictator all what goes beyond the facts are mere fantasy.
>
> ATS: Those of us who know Marinus are well aware that he would not have
> done any harm. During his consulate, he had to step in for both praetores and
> his consular colleague, and nothing bad happened, whatever the Sullan faction
> might believe. They suffer from paranoia, and believe that anyone who does
> not share their views is innately evil, much like those 8th century hangovers
> in the muddle east (as some wags call it), where the US is the Great Satan and
> marj bar Amrika (death to America) is the watchword.
>
>
>
> I personally am most convinced that Marinus would have never wanted
> confrontation with the law, consequently he as dictator would have worked for
> the benefit of all of NR.
>
> ATS: And I share your view...with the advantage of having met Marinus
> several times, as you have not, and of having had a long correspondence with
> him years ago.
>
> However, it is not the point of my message. The point of my message is the
> following:
>
> We can say that the dictator election was halted and the details of the
> procedure of convoking the session deemed irregular; BUT no one with sane
> judgement can call it a "coup d'etat" since the dictator, appointed by the
> senate, is a LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and lawful institution in the NR
> Constitution. It can not be called a "coup" what is constitutional.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
> All legal criteria were satisfied, except the bit with the joint
> consular-trinunicial convoking of the senate session, which is a matter of law
> interpretation, since it is not explicitely forbidden. Moreover, when it was
> vetoed, the whole procedure was terminated, and the dictator was not
> installed: consequently no law was violated.
>
> The conclusion is this: neither Scholastica, nor Livia, nor I are denying that
> SOMETHING happaned last year. And I AM confirming that what happened then it
> was legally problematic. But what I am saying with Scholatica and with others,
> it is that an office which is constitutional can not be called a "coup".
>
> Indeed. Paranoia doth distort the thinking, however.
>
> I will not discuss this topic again: in the archieves you will find my full
> arguing among the old posts. I know that if you carefully think on the things
> what I have written, you will see that there is no justification to call last
> year events as a "coup". So there can not be a justified difference of
> opinion, unless one is driven purely emotionally against the whole issue.
> Where our opinions can, however, differ in the greatest extent it is whether
> the intention with the dictator was good or bad. But it is to decide for each
> citizen individually, since the dictatorship, as it came out, never started
> on.
>
> And what did not happen cannot be labeled as if it had happened in any
> case...but some have these problems, just as others have. This is a matter of
> definitions. Bill Clinton had some problems with them as regards certain
> activities with a certain Monica, and many share these difficulties when
> normal definitions aren�t quite what they would like. Things get distorted to
> fit preconceived views.
>

Vale, et valete.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Scholastica,

You can rest assured that if Nova Roma was left to just the residents of my
humble abode there will always be a place for you and the rest of
your cantankerous paranoia moods. Ok? But, if anyone wants me to stop
trying to build a Roman community all one has to do is to say a word. And
Schoasltica - I dare you. Tell me not to help relocate citizens of Nova
Roma to a physical community. Please I dare you.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:39 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Julio Caesari quiritibus bonae voluntatis
> S.P.D.
> >
> > Having been offline involuntarily, I am catching up, but will do this
> post
> > in reverse order.
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Voluse.
> >
> > Always the Consuls have primary responsibility, for good or ill. goes
> with
> > possession of the big pointy hat. Practically though they can do little
> more
> > than wait for this information to be divulged. I'll be glad myself of an
> > update from them re. Where we are with that goal.
> >
> > in a broad sense it makes no sense to me to invest large amounts of time
> and
> > money in building some flamboyant system some parts of which may not be
> > necessary to have proprietary routines for. Much like you are saying (I
> think)
> > I'd value the opportunity to look at the old IT package and ask was this
> part
> > a "must have" or a "would be nice to have" ability? No sacred cows and
> not
> > being too proud to use simpler systems.
> >
> > ATS: And that would mean what? Dispensing with the creaking censorial
> > database and censorial tools instead of fixing them because you don�t
> want
> > censors? Gee, why do anything correctly when we can make up pretend Roman
> > names (as some reenactors do) and not follow ancient practices? Why not
> have
> > pretend gentes in an ahistoric system, as was the case when the Former
> Boni
> > were ascendant? Well, because we know better, that�s why. Do it that way,
> > the anti-intellectual Boni way, and be the butt of more jokes in
> academia. Of
> > course, you don�t care...
>
> >
> > I too would like to move past this matter, but I want the solution to be
> > something practical, relevant in the short to medium term (based on
> likely
> > population numbers)
> >
> > ATS: The way we are heading, there won�t be many more members than reside
> > in Sulla�s house.
>
> >
> >
> > to Nova Roma, and as cheap as possible. Most prospective citizens will
> see the
> > outfacing webpage and be attracted by that, or at least curious enough to
> > explore more. Whether we have a custom designed system or a series of
> systems,
> > commercially available and adapted, working away behind the scenes won't
> be a
> > concern likely to them.
> >
> > I also want it as simple as possible so even Scholastica could maintain
> it.
> >
> > ATS: I hate to disappoint you and your buds on this, Caesar, but it
> > happens that I work virtually every day with a complicated CMS system. I
> > register students, some of whom do not know any language I can read or
> speak,
> > I present lessons and other materials, I upload lessons, pictures,
> corrected
> > homework and tests, answer questions, etc., etc. I am not stupid, merely
> > blonde. I therefore have more competence in these matters than you might
> > suspect. Moreover, despite remarks made by one of your pals, I do not
> have
> > Alzheimer�s disease, nor does / did anyone in my family, nor does
> > chronological age correlate with physiological age, etc., etc. I might
> add
> > that my age is none of your business, or that of any of your buddies.
> Ditto
> > that of any citizen other than the tirones, who must be at least 18
> unless
> > they are the children of an existing citizen.
>
> >
> >
> > If we plan for the lowest common denominator, technically speaking, then
> we
> > will be on the right track to avoid being held hostage by a few gifted
> > individuals who understand such matters, or being left in the lurch by
> them
> > when they flounce out the door of NR in a huff (justified or not). We
> MUST
> > plan to avoid such dislocations in the future. Any proposed new system
> that
> > involves a complex or intensive level of knowledge to maintain it should
> be
> > tossed in the bin as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > ATS: We have at least two citizens who have volunteered to assist with IT
> > issues...for free. Yunno, Caesar, if certain parties weren�t so damn
> > obnoxious, more people would stick around and work for NR.
> >
> > The KISS principle.
> >
> > ATS: Probably works with defibrillators and such...but maybe not software
> > coding. While I don�t represent the least common denominator in such
> skills
> > (as you believe), I also see no reason why we should play to that. Those
> who
> > are too dense to refrain from using the hairdryer while in the shower or
> tub
> > might be too dense to be worthy of other attributes, as a certain Carolus
> > noted. These things should be the domain of those with some expertise in
> the
> > field...unless, of course, you also like having your brain surgeon taken
> from
> > the ranks of fourth-grade dropouts.
> >
> > Vale bene
> > Caesar
> >
> > Vale et valete bene.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "V.
>
> > Valerius Volusus" <nykcowham@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Salve Caesar,
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> >> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >>> > > **
> >>> > > Well that is the domain of the consuls, so I can tell you what I
> know or
> >>> > > have been told, without wanting to steal their thunder, so to
> speak.
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >> > I appreciate you making the effort. As I already mentioned I really
> don't
> >> > have a clue who is actually responsible for leading us out of this IT
> hell
> >> > so forgive me if I seemed to be trying to put you on a spot where you
> don't
> >> > belong :D Is it the consuls or the Senate, or someone else? It's
> really
> >> > difficult to fix infrastructure when there isn't an "owner" as such.
> >> >
> >>> > > The website and tools are hosted outside of the US. The current
> consuls
> >>> > > have been paying out of their own pockets to keep it up and running
> on
> the
> >>> > > host site, due to corporate funds having been locked in limbo post
> the
> >>> > > departure of former citizens (CFO included) and difficulties
> getting
> >>> > > replacements on the account. Our current CFO can update on that in
> >>> greater
> >>> > > detail.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The former CIO would only deal with one of the current consuls and
> the
> >>> > > access codes to parts of the system have been slowly trickling in.
> That
> >>> > > ex-CIO sits in a rival group (yes it is a rival one despite all the
> >>> blather
> >>> > > to the contrary) and has no vested interest in promptly helping NR
> - in
> >>> fact
> >>> > > the longer he can string this out the better it is for him and his
> tatty
> >>> > > group of malcontents. There is no professionalism at work here that
> >>> compels
> >>> > > him to full and frank disclosure.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The current host had issues with the code as it had "security
> flaws".
> >>> What
> >>> > > they were who knows. i don't. No one was ever told. I suspect parts
> of
> the
> >>> > > system were disabled to allow it to be hosted. So the 'breakage'
> may not
> bez
> >>> > > that, but more a disabling.
> >>> > >
> >> > Well if there are "security flaws" in the code, which if it's
> hand-rolled
> >> > custom scripts is very very likely, then any hosting provider might
> have
> >> > problems with you running that same code on their servers, depending
> on the
> >> > severity of the vulnerability and risk exposure. Even if you could
> find
> >> > someone to dig through the code and verify that it could be made to
> work
> >> > (i.e. is compatible with current server hosts) we are still left in a
> poor
> >> > situation of depending on undocumented custom-built code. Software is
> >> always
> >> > a liability never an asset, unless you are selling software.
> >> >
> >> > Even if the old scripts could be made to work again it is still in our
> best
> >> > interests to reduce reliance on them. Better to migrate the site to a
> >> commonz
> >> > platform that has lots of user-community support, complete
> documentation,
> >> > etc. What is valuable to NR is our content, not the software used to
> >> present
> >> > it on a website.
> >> > zz
> >>> > > Long term, well last year the junior consul had an 'analysis" done
> by
> the
> >>> > > CIO I believe which concluded we had to throw it all in the bin and
> >>>
> start
> >>> > > again, to the cost of 10K. I have no document that actually lists
> the
> >>> issues
> >>> > > in a technical manner, and explains why a re-write is the ONLY
> solution.
> I
> >>> > > don't think one exists. As regrettable as you may find it to dredge
> >>>
> these
> >>> > > things up, it is necessary to explain that a number of Senators
> were and
> are
> >>> > > utterly opposed to signing off on that expenditure or anything like
> it,
> >>> > > until we have proof this current system has gone the way of the
> >>> > > dodo. Clearly parts of it are functioning, so it seems as though
> the
> >>> > > argument was for it to be re-coded in a modern programming
> language.
> >>> > >
> >> > I would avoid any suggestions of re-coding at ALL. That just sticks us
> in
> >> > the same situation 10 years down the road. This years modern
> programming
> >> > language is next decades legacy system. There are other alternatives,
> like
> >> > migrating all the content to a new modular content management system
> (CMS)
> >> > like Drupal, Joomla, et al. However, maybe many of the systems used
> right
> >> > now are not necessary. We don't need to assume what was considered
> valuable
> >> > or necessary previously are still contributing anything to our
> experience
> >> of
> >> > NR.
> >> >
> >>> > > So briefly to conclude, the website/tools may or may not be broken.
> >>>
> Until
> >>> > > we are certain we have been given everything and can clearly get
> into
> the
> >>> > > code, which I don't believe we yet can (the consuls will have to
> answer
> >>> that
> >>> > > as I don't want to speak for them in case there have been recent
> >>> > > developments I am unaware of), then to me we cannot determine the
> >>> issues. We
> >>> > > won't get much sensible dialogue on a professional level with the
> ex-CIO
> in
> >>> > > my estimation, so we have to get someone into the code.
> >>> > >
> >> > But who is going to go "into the code"? That is going to cost money
> unless
> >> > there is a Perl programmer among the citizenry who is willing to
> volunteer
> >> > their time (I'm making an educated guess that it's written in Perl).
> Do we
> >> > really want to waste money paying for someone to confirm or lay a
> suspicion
> >> > to rest? Better, to chuck the code entirely and migrate the content in
> a
> >> > community system that is closer to an industry standard for content
> >> > management - or scale back our ambitions.
> >> >
> >>> > > Now, allowing someone into teh code also requires Senatorial sign
> off.
> >>> This
> >>> > > is a corporate asset. We can't let any Tom Dick or Harry root
> around in
> it,
> >>> > > since there are liability issues and frankly after last year the
> idea
> >>> that
> >>> > > there is a risk it could be wiped out either accidentally or
> >>> deliberately is
> >>> > > a very real concern (and has to be re. corproate due diligence). So
> >>> > > candidates for exploratory surgery on the damned thing can identify
> >>> > > themselves, and names and qualifications can be put no doubt to the
> >>> Senate,
> >>> > > for a vote on who goes ion with the scapel and roots in its guts.
> That
> is
> >>> > > necessary to protect the corporation, protect the Directors and
> protect
> the
> >>> > > person performing the review on the code.
> >>> > >
> >> > As I mentioned before software is always a liability and never an
> asset,
> >> > unless your a software company. Even if you invested thousands in it's
> >> > development that prior investment is a sunk cost. However, if you mean
> >> there
> >> > might be sensitive data in the code, that's just another reason it
> should
> >> be
> >> > abandoned.
> >> >
> >> > I would say after 10-13 years we are probably due for a complete
> website
> >> > rethink, at this point. What do we REALLY need? What is nothing more
> than
> >> > cruft at this point, or too expensive to sustain at our current
> community
> >> > size?
> >> >
> >>> > > Need more? Badger our Consuls. I'll drop them a line if they don't
> pick
> up
> >>> > > on this and ask them to provide their 'official" response to Iulia.
> >>> > >
> >> > Thanks for your heroic effort at a response. Very much appreciated.
> I'll go
> >> > bug Cato now... I'm sure he'll be pleased :D
> >> >
> >> > Vale bene
> >> >
> >> > Volusus.
> >> >
> >> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Caesar et salvete omnes in foro.

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Voluse.
>
> Always the Consuls have primary responsibility, for good or ill. goes with
> possession of the big pointy hat. Practically though they can do little more
> than wait for this information to be divulged. I'll be glad myself of an
> update from them re. Where we are with that goal.
>

It seems clear to me that most important step right now is for 'pointy-hat'
involvement to champion a web initiative and get appropriate web governance
structures in place. That means identifying all the relevant stakeholders
(anyone who might be sad, annoyed or put-out if their needs and requirements
are not represented). As we can see from Magistra Scholastica's responses as
Senior Scriba Censoris we have a very good example of a relevant stakeholder
- another would be representation of the needs of the Collegium Pontifices /
Augurs, and obviously the Senate as body. There are best-practices and some
well-worn paths that we can follow to achieve our goals and we should make
full use of that body of knowledge.

> in a broad sense it makes no sense to me to invest large amounts of time
> and money in building some flamboyant system some parts of which may not be
> necessary to have proprietary routines for. Much like you are saying (I
> think) I'd value the opportunity to look at the old IT package and ask was
> this part a "must have" or a "would be nice to have" ability? No sacred cows
> and not being too proud to use simpler systems.
>

The industry best-practice (non-profit web project management) is to not
focus on technology, but to focus on the current organizational or business
needs. Once those needs are clear and agreed upon the legacy site can be
evaluated according to a rational baseline and decisions based accordingly.
That means understanding the various workflows for specific organizational
tasks: E.g. accepting new members, approval of proposed citizen name, 90 day
review, examination, full-citizenship, resignations, accrediting tax
payments, associating century point or other reputation tags, user building
their public profile in the album, etc. etc.)

In many non-profit organizations the web is just one part of their business
operations, for others like Nova Roma, the web IS their business operation,
or at the very least the central hub of operations.

> I too would like to move past this matter, but I want the solution to be
> something practical, relevant in the short to medium term (based on likely
> population numbers) to Nova Roma, and as cheap as possible. Most prospective
> citizens will see the outfacing webpage and be attracted by that, or at
> least curious enough to explore more. Whether we have a custom designed
> system or a series of systems, commercially available and adapted, working
> away behind the scenes won't be a concern likely to them.
>

Yes, we should not expect technology, any technology, by itself to be a
solution - it is only a part of the solution: an end tool to achieve the
goals of the organization and community that it serves. We are not in any
position to procure software without having a clear understanding of our
needs and a road map. It is simply impossible to make a rational decision
without information, and to make a rational procurement decision requires
information about our needs. There are no software magic bullets.

> I also want it as simple as possible so even Scholastica could maintain it.
>
>

That might have not been a good example :D However, the principle stands -
usability is definitely a critical factor for success. The only problem is
that these are really discussions that should be held in the context of a
steering committee that has sufficient decision making power. In sales a lot
of emphasis is placed on qualifying your prospect, which firstly means make
sure you are talking with a decision maker with purchasing power. The same
principle holds in this discussion, in that though it might be gratifying
agreeing amongst ourselves of certain things that should be done, we have
simply wasted our time if those who have the power to make the decision are
not involved in the discussion and remain unconvinced. Thus, the consuls
seem to be needed to champion any initiatives designed to meet our web
operations needs.

> If we plan for the lowest common denominator, technically speaking, then we
> will be on the right track to avoid being held hostage by a few gifted
> individuals who understand such matters, or being left in the lurch by them
> when they flounce out the door of NR in a huff (justified or not). We MUST
> plan to avoid such dislocations in the future. Any proposed new system that
> involves a complex or intensive level of knowledge to maintain it should be
> tossed in the bin as far as I am concerned.
>

With regard to having access to the current system, that seems to be less a
matter of technology and more to do with inadequate web governance. All
information critical for web operations (URL ownership/renewal, access to
content and code, etc.) all needs to be protected organizationally and not
placed into the hands of single individuals. Since nothing was in place,
then that's what happened, over-reliance on individual initiative. You could
get this code running on another server perhaps or replace it with a new
system, but if that web governance issue is not resolved it will happen
again - regardless of how complex or easy the system is to use. Web
governance and usability are different issues, but certainly both important
consideration provided we do not confuse the two.

Vale et valete bene.

Volusus.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

V. Valerius Volusus Consulibus Iulia Aquila Pontifex Quiritibusque S.P.D.

I join the good pontifex in her request for an appraisal of the current IT
situation and also invite the consuls to review the other ongoing discussion
thread dealing with this same topic. There is clearly a need for leadership
and direction at this time.

Thank you!

Volusus.

2011/8/20 luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>

> **
>
>
> Iulia pont. Consulibus Quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Please apprise us of the current IT situation. Also please know that I
> understand the obstacles and so this is not to elicit any blame or fault but
> to get some sort of update or forecaste I fully understand the obstacles
> herein and trust that it is being attended to in the best way possible given
> our resources.
>
> Vobis gratias
>
> Valete optime,
>
> Julia
> Nashvillae scribebat
> a.d. XIV Kal. Sep. ‡ P. Ullerio C. Equitio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXIV
>
> Est enim amicitia nihil aliud nisi omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum cum
> benevolenta et caritate consensio, qua quidem haud scio an excepta spientia
> nil quicquam melius homini sit a dis immortalibus datum ~ Cicero
>
> http://aedesvenusgenetrix.blogspot.com/
> http://www.thelastenchantment.com/
> http://www.meetup.com/Mystic-Sanctuary-Of-Fortuna-Primigenia/
> http://www.meetup.com/Temple-Of-Venus/
> Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
>
> _
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit.

Saluete, Quirites.

Here we are again, one more nundinum further through the sacral year.
This nundinum marks the twenty-first such of our annus sacer, putting
us just prior to the midpoint (there are forty-five nundina a year,
with a few remaining days).

This nundinum consists of the following nine days:

21 August 2011 (a.d. XII Kal Sep): dies nefastus publicus [Consualia]
22 August 2011 (a.d. XI Kal Sep): dies endotercisus
23 August 2011 (a.d. X Kal Sep): dies nefastus publicus [Volcanalia]
24 August 2011 (a.d. IX Kal Sep): dies comitialis et religiosus
25 August 2011 (a.d. VIII Kal Sep): dies nefastus publicus [Opiconsivia]
26 August 2011 (a.d. VII Kal Sep): dies comitialis
27 August 2011 (a.d. VI Kal Sep): dies nefastus publicus [Volturnalia]
28 August 2011 (a.d. V Kal Sep): dies comitialis
29 August 2011 (a.d. IV Kal Sep): dies comitialis

So here we have a great religious nundinum, with just under half the
days seeing specified observances. We begin with the Consualia, to
Consus. Two days later, on the tenth day preceeding the Calends, we
have the Volcanalia, to Vulcanus (also spelled 'Volcanus'). Two days
thereafter, we come to the Opiconsivia, about which even Fowler has
comparatively little to say. Yet another two days thereafter, we come
to the last of the feriae of the month, the Volturnalia, to Volturnus.
Of these four, two are to deities represented by flamines: the
Volcanalia (flamen Volcanalis), and the Volturnalia (flamen
Volturnalis).

Romani pietatis exemplum sint.

a.d. XII Kal Sep
Lauini, Arizonae scr.
P Ullerio C Equitio coss.

--
We the unwilling, led by the ungrateful, are doing the impossible.
We've done so much, for so long, with so little,
that we are now qualified to do something with nothing.

Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

It seems to me that, if we want a simple, inexpensive system that can be managed easily by someone with little or no experience (I'd be a good model for that benchmark, considering that it took me um 5 days to figure out how to use IE8 in tandem with Facebook, Google translate and my adaptive software) It took me I think 4 days to figure out that I'd have to highlight the text I wanted to translate...amply demonstrating my utter lack of cyber savvy), and easy for citizens to use, it might be time to seriously consider that, on rare occasions, the bath water thrown out should include the baby. If we have a system developed by one person, if we can't get into its guts because the only other person in the Universe who has the information is a member of an organization that, at best, wishes us no good, and at worst, would, given the opportunity do what it can to sabotage and destroy us, if the inventor of this system is no longer around and is unwilling to provide the information, it might be time to decide we need a clean sweep and a new structure. No, I am not saying fancy. No, I am not saying expensive. We have already been presented with possible working alternatives. I'm not even saying that we should summarily dump what we have and find something better immediately. That would be irresponsible on many levels. What I *am* saying is that making anything we do contingent upon being able to thoroughly study what we have is beginning to look, to my untrained mind, like a way of perpetually postponing a workable resolution. Even if we could get at the innards of the system, who would be trusted to examine it? From what has been said here, recently, I get the feeling that answer would be ...no one.

I agree with Volusus (I think) on this, and I would like to see a group of magistrates, along with representatives from those who use our system most, that is, someone from the Censura, someone from the Collegium Pontificum, and possibly someone from the Curule Aedile's cohors, and whoever is tasked with keeping the web site up to date and accurate (if there *is* anyone) meet together to determine what we will need (not what we want), and then set them to find, with help from citizens knowledgeable in this area, several alternatives that can be evaluated, and the best of them presented to the Senate, or to the CFO first for his recommendation, and *then* to the Senate.

I'd seta maximum dollar amount for any purchase, and a maximum dollar amount for any ongoing fees, and I'd give the committee (gods I don't believe I'm championing a committee!) a strict time limit, and require regular reports to either the Consuls or Praetors, *and* to the Senate.

I'm not sure how workable my idea is (though I am confident that I will be told how unworkable it is), and it isn't presented as a finished proposal. Perhaps, though, it can be reworked a bit (or a lot) so that we can begin this process.

Vale bene!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XII Kalendas Septembris; hic dies nefastus publicus est.

"Aegre id Romana pubes passa et haud dubie ad vim spectare res coepit.
Cui tempus locumque aptum ut daret Romulus aegritudinem animi
dissimulans ludos ex industria parat Neptuno equestri sollemnes;
Consualia vocat. Indici deinde finitimis spectaculum iubet; quantoque
apparatu tum sciebant aut poterant, concelebrant ut rem claram
exspectatamque facerent." - Livy, History of Rome 1.9

"Why is it that at festival of the Consualia they place garlands on
both the horses and the asses and allow them to rest?

Is it because they celebrate this festival in honour of Poseidon, god
of horses,and the ass enjoys a share in the horse's exemption? Or is
it that since navigation and transport by sea have been discovered,
pack animals have come to enjoy a certain measure of ease and rest?" -
Plutarch, "The Roman Questions" 48

"Some state that these things happened in the first year of Romulus'
reign, but Gnaeus Gellius says it was in the fourth, which is more
probable. For it is not likely that the head of a newly-built city
would undertake such an enterprise before establishing its government.
As regards the reason for the seizing of the virgins, some ascribe it
to a scarcity of women, others to the seeking of pretext for war; but
those who give the most plausible account — and with them I agree —
attribute it to the design of contracting an alliance with the
neighbouring cities, founded on affinity. And the Romans even to my
day continued to celebrate the festival then instituted by Romulus,
calling it the Consualia, in the course of which a subterranean altar,
erected near the Circus Maximus, is uncovered by the removal of the
soil round about it and honoured with sacrifices and burnt-offerings
of first-fruits and a course is run both by horses yoked to chariots
and by single horses. The god to whom these honours are paid is called
Consus by the Romans, being the same, according to some who render the
name into our tongue, as Poseidon Seisichthon or the "Earth-shaker";
and they say that this god was honoured with a subterranean altar
because he holds the earth. I know also from hearsay another
tradition, to the effect that the festival is indeed celebrated in
honour of Neptune and the horse-races are held in his honour, but that
the subterranean altar was erected later to a certain divinity whose
name may not be uttered, who presides over and is the guardian of
hidden counsels; for a secret altar has never been erected to Neptune,
they say, in any part of the world by either Greeks or barbarians. But
it is hard to say what the truth of the matter is." - Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, "Roman Antiquities" - 2.31

"They built also a temple to Ceres, to whom by the ministry of women
they offered sacrifices without wine, according to the custom of the
Greeks, none of which rites our time has changed. Moreover, they
assigned a precinct to the Equestrian Neptune and instituted the
festival called by the Arcadians Hippocrateia and by the Romans
Consualia, during which it is customary among the latter for the
horses and mules to rest from work and to have their heads crowned
with flowers. They also consecrated many other precincts, altars and
images of the gods and instituted purifications and sacrifices
according to the customs of their own country, which continued to be
performed down to my day in the same manner." - op. cit. 1.33


Today is the celebration of the Consualia. The Consualia is a
festival which honors Consus, the god who protects the harvest which
is now in storage at this time. The harvest grains were stored in
underground vaults, and the temple of Consus was also underground.
This shrine was covered with earth all year and was only uncovered for
this one day. Mars, as a protector of the harvest, was also honored on
this day, as were the lares, the household gods that individual
families held sacred. Chariot races were held this day in the Circus
Maximus, which included an odd race in which chariots were pulled by
mules. As part of the ceremonies, the rex sacrorum would appear in
full garb riding his horse-drawn chariot once around the Circus
Maximus. Consus is equated, by Livy, Plutarch and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, with Neptune in his aspect as the god of earthquakes
and horses.

"Rome was little, if you wish to trace its first beginnings,
But still in that little, there was hope of all this.
The walls already stood, too cramped for its future people,
But then thought too large for its populace.
If you ask where my son's palace was,
See there, that house made of straw and reeds.
He snatched the gifts of peaceful sleep on straw,
Yet from that same low bed he rose to the stars.
Already the Roman's name extended beyond his city,
Though he possessed neither wife nor father-in-law.
Wealthy neighbours rejected poor sons-in-law,
And hardly thought I was the origin of the race.
It harmed the Romans that they lived in cattle-byres,
Grazed sheep, and owned a few acres of poor soil.
Birds and beasts each mate with their own kind,
And even a snake has another with which to breed:
Rights of intermarriage are granted to distant peoples:
Yet none wished to marry with the Romans.
I sympathised, Romulus, and gave you your father's spirit:
'Forget prayers,' I said, 'Arms will grant what you seek.'
He prepared a feast for the god, Consus. Consus will tell you
The rest of what happened that day when you sing his rites.
Cures was angered, and all who endured that same wrong:
Then a father fist waged war on his sons-in-law.
The ravished women were now almost mothers,
And the war between the kinfolk lingered on,
When the wives gathered to the call in Juno's temple:
Among them, my daughter-in-law dared to speak:
"Oh, all you ravished women (we have that in common)
We can no longer delay our duties to our kin.
The battle prepares, but choose which side you will pray for:
Your husbands on this side, your fathers are on that.
The question is whether you choose to be widows or fatherless:
I will give you dutiful and bold advice."
She gave counsel: they obeyed and loosened their hair,
And clothed their bodies in gloomy funeral dress.
The ranks already stood to arms, preparing to die,
The trumpets were about to sound the battle signal,
When the ravished women stood between husband and father,
Holding their infants, dear pledges of love, to their breasts.
When, with streaming hair, they reached the centre of the field,
They knelt on the ground, their grandchildren, as if they understood,
With sweet cries, stretching out their little arms to their grandfathers:
Those who could, called to their grandfather, seen for the first time,
And those who could barely speak yet, were encouraged to try.
The arms and passions of the warriors fall: dropping their swords
Fathers and sons-in-law grasp each other's hands,
They embrace the women, praising them, and the grandfather
Bears his grandchild on his shield: a sweeter use for it." - Ovid,
Fasti III

On this day the Rape of the Sabine women took place under Romulus.
Seeing a need to increase the population of Rome, Romulus authorized
each Roman to forcibly take women from the visiting Sabines as their
wives, but only as appropriate to their social status. A war to avenge
this insult was avoided when the kidnapped Sabine women intervened and
voluntarily accepted their Roman husbands, who had been careful to
treat them honorably.

Valete bene!

Cato

Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae Omnibusque S.P.D.

Jumping in and out foxlike here to give some thoughts.

If Caeca's proposal is under considered (which she should) then I can at
least say from the angle of the Curule Aedile's , we'll be the easiest for
our patterns of projects don't technically change. Unlike say the Consular
Agenda which varies year to year depending on who is Consul.

Now back to planning the Ludi Romani..


Vale Optime,
Aeternia



--
*"Fortes fortuna iuvat"*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

V. Valerius Volusus C. Mariae Caecae omnibusque in foro S.P.D.

I think you and I are definitely are on the same page. I consider you to
have an excellent mind and your posts are always a joy to read. I agree with
your assessment that we should not wait for information to come in
dribs-and-drabs (or more likely not at all) from someone who has no vested
interest in helping us. Given that reality, we are not at all stuck and our
hands are not tied. We have a way forward. I'm also a little reticent about
committee formation, but given a clear focus and schedule expectations it
would be preferable to a total free-for-all. If nothing else it would be
helpful to identify the key stakeholders in forming some kind of steering
group or task-force to start identifying our current needs and
organizational requirements.

Vale optime,

Volusus.

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:49 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

> **
> Omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> It seems to me that, if we want a simple, inexpensive system that can be
> managed easily by someone with little or no experience (I'd be a good model
> for that benchmark, considering that it took me um 5 days to figure out how
> to use IE8 in tandem with Facebook, Google translate and my adaptive
> software) It took me I think 4 days to figure out that I'd have to highlight
> the text I wanted to translate...amply demonstrating my utter lack of cyber
> savvy), and easy for citizens to use, it might be time to seriously consider
> that, on rare occasions, the bath water thrown out should include the baby.
> If we have a system developed by one person, if we can't get into its guts
> because the only other person in the Universe who has the information is a
> member of an organization that, at best, wishes us no good, and at worst,
> would, given the opportunity do what it can to sabotage and destroy us, if
> the inventor of this system is no longer around and is unwilling to provide
> the information, it might be time to decide we need a clean sweep and a new
> structure. No, I am not saying fancy. No, I am not saying expensive. We have
> already been presented with possible working alternatives. I'm not even
> saying that we should summarily dump what we have and find something better
> immediately. That would be irresponsible on many levels. What I *am* saying
> is that making anything we do contingent upon being able to thoroughly study
> what we have is beginning to look, to my untrained mind, like a way of
> perpetually postponing a workable resolution. Even if we could get at the
> innards of the system, who would be trusted to examine it? From what has
> been said here, recently, I get the feeling that answer would be ...no one.
>
> I agree with Volusus (I think) on this, and I would like to see a group of
> magistrates, along with representatives from those who use our system most,
> that is, someone from the Censura, someone from the Collegium Pontificum,
> and possibly someone from the Curule Aedile's cohors, and whoever is tasked
> with keeping the web site up to date and accurate (if there *is* anyone)
> meet together to determine what we will need (not what we want), and then
> set them to find, with help from citizens knowledgeable in this area,
> several alternatives that can be evaluated, and the best of them presented
> to the Senate, or to the CFO first for his recommendation, and *then* to the
> Senate.
>
> I'd seta maximum dollar amount for any purchase, and a maximum dollar
> amount for any ongoing fees, and I'd give the committee (gods I don't
> believe I'm championing a committee!) a strict time limit, and require
> regular reports to either the Consuls or Praetors, *and* to the Senate.
>
> I'm not sure how workable my idea is (though I am confident that I will be
> told how unworkable it is), and it isn't presented as a finished proposal.
> Perhaps, though, it can be reworked a bit (or a lot) so that we can begin
> this process.
>
> Vale bene!
> C. Maria Caeca
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Aeternia,

With regard to Ludi planning, please note that my email has changed (
nykcowham@...) so if you could update google talk etc. so you can get
hold of me. We do indeed need to get cracking on the workload ahead!

Vale bene,

Volusus.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae Omnibusque S.P.D.
>
> Jumping in and out foxlike here to give some thoughts.
>
> If Caeca's proposal is under considered (which she should) then I can at
> least say from the angle of the Curule Aedile's , we'll be the easiest for
> our patterns of projects don't technically change. Unlike say the Consular
> Agenda which varies year to year depending on who is Consul.
>
> Now back to planning the Ludi Romani..
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> --
> *"Fortes fortuna iuvat"*
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Liviae Plautae quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> L. Livia Plauta omnibus sal.
>
> I thank my friend Lentulus for sparing me the work to write on this topic,
> by giving a detailed account of what happened and of our opinions on the
> matter.
>
> I need to rewrite the following statement of his into correct English,
> though, because it might be misunderstood in its current form.
> Lentulus: "Only if we had Marinus as dictator!... I think we were light
> years ahead today as compared to this dead frozen state in which NR
> stagnates without leadership... "
>
> Meaning: "If only we had Marinus as a dictator! ... I think we would be
> light years ahead today compared to this dead frozen state in which NR
> stagnates without leadership ..."
>
> ATS: And stagnate without leadership is precisely what it does. Many
> magistracies are unfilled, and many which are filled might as well not be.
>
>
> The only point where my opinion differs from Lentulus' is that I think Nova
> Roma can no longer be "saved" now, in the sense that as an organization it
> is no longer suitable to support the Religio Romana (while it might still be
> a good place for reenactors who are not interested in Roman religon to
> meet).
>
> I also thank senator Sulla for forwarding all those posts from the Senate
> list.
>
> There used to be a "senate seal" in place, that is, senators were not
> allowed to forward to the Main List posts form the Senate, or to post about
> the discussions going on there.
>
> ATS: Yes, but Certain Parties seem to think that they are exempt from any
> semblance of good sense. The Senate list is a privileged one, and its
> discussions should not be shared with the citizenry.
>
> So for me it's a surprise, for example, to see the post by Perusianus, who
> usually doesn't post at all in the NR lists. Of course his assessment of the
> situation at the time was correct: most of the Italians had left NR and were
> happy with their Pomerium organization.
>
> Since then even the last attempt by me and Vindex to keep some people
> interested in NR has failed.
>
> ATS: Hardly surprising.
>
> Quintilianus' assessment was also correct:
> "Shrinking membership, less and less people who pay taxes and vote.
> We are losing great parts of our Spanish, Italian and Latin American
> citizens. No activity in Britannia and very little in Gallia. Those
> who are in Sarmatia and other Eastern European countries are doing a
> splendid job that gives us hope, but they might also also soon lose
> hope, because of how we act and not act."
>
> ATS: Sadly, I find myself in agreement with him...something of an unusual
> situation. I might add that the overt hatred of Latin and criticisms of its
> use (even when directed at a Latinist) will cost us our sole world-class
> Latinist, simply because some of those who do not know Latin yelp every time
> it is used. It does not help to have a Latinist complain that all or part of
> a message is in Latin, or for others to refuse to learn it. There is no
> compulsion to read every message on the ML, or any other list. Those who
> don¹t know a given language can find someone to translate. There are several
> skilled people among us, though most are very busy...and it would be wise to
> learn the universal language, if not others which are commonly taught in
> schools. Here in the US, Master¹s degree candidates in all academic fields
> EXCEPT education (and how bizarre is that?) have to demonstrate a reading
> knowledge of a specified language (typically French or Italian, or German or
> Russian), and PhD students must demonstrate a reading knowledge of two such
> languages. In classics, we Americans must know at least four languages
> besides English (Latin, Greek, French, and German); several also study
> Sanskrit and / or Hebrew. No excuses.
>
> Since then there was a mass secession of Sarmatian citizens, who keep
> pursuing their goal of building a temple to Jupiter, but now outside Nova
> Roma.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
> Optime vale, et valete.
>
>> > Lentulus omnibus sal.
>> >
>> > I don't want to waste my time on this discussion since I have explained my
>> > point of view several times in this and other mailing lists already. But
>> > as one of the many citizens who applauded the idea of appointing Marinus
>> > as dictator, I feel it's my moral obligation to comment and to repeat
>> > again that what happened last year it was NOT a "coup", and it is UTTERLY
>> > RIDICULOUS, PRETENTIOUS, AND POMPOUS to call it a "coup". But, of course,
>> > all of us must have the right to use the word which fits his taste.
>> >
>> > I, Scholastica, Livia - and I know that many other citizens - don't think
>> > that an appointment of a constitutional dictator can be labeled as a
>> > "coup", especially when it is done in a very serious crisis: exactly in a
>> > situation for what it is invented by our Constitution as a means of
>> > solution.
>> >
>> > I don't exactly know what Scholastica or Livia exactly think, but for me
>> > what happened last year was an attempt to save Nova Roma from the ongoing
>> > chaos by appointing a dictator, a very legal, constitutional and Roman
>> > thing, and it was initially supported by all senators except 1-2, later
>> > still by the overwhelming majority. Almost everyone wanted the dictator.
>> >
>> > Was this dictator election a pre-organized political action? OF COURSE it
>> > was, it had to be, as all well-thought-out political actions are
>> > pre-organized and conscious actions. I have presonally and repeatedly
>> > advocated for appointing a dictator in this very same mailing list since
>> > the beginning of the decline of NR. Many citizens trusted Marinus and I
>> > still think that he was an example of leadership, and he as a senior
>> > consular and esteemed senator could have introduced the necessary reforms
>> > into NR. For our detriment, and ever growing stagnation, he was not
>> > appointed as dictator and NR is today where it is. Only if we had Marinus
>> > as dictator!... I think we were light years ahead today as compared to
>> > this dead frozen state in which NR stagnates without leadership...
>> >
>> > So, what some very colorfully call a "coup d'etate", is viewed by many
>> > others as a heroic attempt to save Nova Roma from the
>> > internal warrings, stagnation and decline, using the constitutional option
>> > appointing a person trusted by most people as dictator.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, the organizers of this dictator election committed an
>> > error - and this is why I must accept that the appointment was indeed not
>> > regular, thus not completely lawful.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> > The dictator election attempt was executed using legally questionable
>> > means, i.e. circumventing Albucius' consular veto by Consul Quintilianus'
>> > convening the senate jointly with the tribunes, which was (and still is) a
>> > matter of debate whether it is legal or illegal, but the debate was
>> > officially concluded by the rest of tribunes as illegal - though there are
>> > numerous theoretical objections. I, as a law respecting citizen, accepted
>> > the veto of the tribunes, and I still don't question the outcome: the
>> > dictator was vetoed. Cn. Marinus Censorius dictator-elect accepted it too.
>> > No dictator entered office.
>> >
>> > That the dictator election failed it was a tragedy, because I firmly
>> > beleive that Marinus as dictator could have stoped the stagnation of
>> > Nova Roma, could have solved our many technical and organizational
>> > problems including our IT problems immediately. Since then very few
>> > improvements was made on NR, and today it seems clearer than ever that
>> > the need for the dictator was fully justified.
>> >
>> > As for the featuring of a dictatorial appointment as a "coup d'etat", it
>> > is exaggerating, idiotic and pompous. What was, however, and still is a
>> > proper question regarding those events it is whether the consul can
>> > convene a senate session jointly by the tribunes or not. As it came out
>> > Nova Roma did not accept that legal approach, and thus the dictator was
>> > not deemed elected properly.
>> >
>> > So, accept that facts:
>> >
>> > 1) the dictator is a normal and legal solution in NR's constitution for
>> > handling crises;
>> > 2) many Nova Romans and senators wanted that dictator to handle the crisis
>> > of last year;
>> > 3) the intention and purpose with the dictator was legal since the
>> > institution itself is a legal NR institution;
>> > 4) the authority which was appointing it was legal since it's the
>> > prerogative of the senate, and it was the senate which was electing
>> > Marinus;
>> > 5) HOWEVER, the way of convening the senate (a consul JOINTLY with the
>> > tribunes) was dubious, and some accepted it as a legal way of convening
>> > the senate, since our laws did not prohibit it, some thought that it was
>> > not provided by our laws as an option because our laws did not explicitely
>> > allow it.
>> > 6) This way the whole business of appointing the dictator came to a
>> > legalistic dispute where the other consul and the other tribunes vetoed
>> > it, and finally Marinus himself declined the position.
>> >
>> > End of the story.
>> >
>> > Some are now convinced that Marinus as a dictator would have done tyrannic
>> > actions. Many others are convinced that Marinus would have been a true
>> > healer of our illnesses and a fair and just leader. Since Marinus has
>> > never been installed as dictator all what goes beyond the facts are mere
>> > fantasy. I personally am most convinced that Marinus would have never
>> > wanted confrontation with the law, consequently he as dictator would have
>> > worked for the benefit of all of NR.
>> >
>> > However, it is not the point of my message. The point of my message is the
>> > following:
>> >
>> > We can say that the dictator election was halted and the details of the
>> > procedure of convoking the session deemed irregular; BUT no one with sane
>> > judgement can call it a "coup d'etat" since the dictator, appointed by the
>> > senate, is a LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and lawful institution in the NR
>> > Constitution. It can not be called a "coup" what is constitutional. All
>> > legal criteria were satisfied, except the bit with the joint
>> > consular-trinunicial convoking of the senate session, which is a matter of
>> > law interpretation, since it is not explicitely forbidden. Moreover, when
>> > it was vetoed, the whole procedure was terminated, and the dictator was
>> > not installed: consequently no law was violated.
>> >
>> > The conclusion is this: neither Scholastica, nor Livia, nor I are denying
>> > that SOMETHING happaned last year. And I AM confirming that what happened
>> > then it was legally problematic. But what I am saying with Scholatica and
>> > with others, it is that an office which is constitutional can not be
>> > called a "coup".
>> >
>> >
>> > I will not discuss this topic again: in the archieves you will find my
>> > full arguing among the old posts. I know that if you carefully think on
>> > the things what I have written, you will see that there is no
>> > justification to call last year events as a "coup". So there can not be a
>> > justified difference of opinion, unless one is driven purely emotionally
>> > against the whole issue. Where our opinions can, however, differ in the
>> > greatest extent it is whether the intention with the dictator was good or
>> > bad. But it is to decide for each citizen individually, since the
>> > dictatorship, as it came out, never started on.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Voluse!

Have I got work for *you*! Did you change your yahoo group settings so you
get cohors mail? (something I've been uh know to, um, forget to do, upon
occasion, LOL!)

I'll add you new address to my magic book and forward you a copy of the
current schedule, which is set in soft stone, at this point.

Vale quam optime!
Caeca

Salve,

You mean you haven't been in the Seclusion this entire time of pre-planning
the Ludi Romani?!?

*blinks*


Volusus do e-mail me at musesdream@... with your proper officially
correct new address please.


Fox-like grows Antlers and goes off to the dark forest..

Vale,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]