Folding Forum

Adak wrote:
This is a cellular protein research project. It needs to be lead by protein research scientists. Doesn't that make sense?


Short answer is NO.
There is no I in team and it has to be a team effort.
And I am not a NFL player making 10,000,000$ a year.

Pat Bowlen - Denver Bronco's
Jerry Jones - Dallas Cowboy's
Robert Kraft - New England Patriots
etc.

ALL team owners tell the coach what they want. They don't call the plays however. They're too busy sipping champagne and enjoying the game, in the owner's suite.

So PG is poor at administration, in your opinion. Do you think that gives you the right to second guess their administrative decisions for the project?

Do you demand that from other projects?

Second guess... no. Opt out if I so desire because of poor donor relations? A definitive yes. Judging by the number of machines/cpu's declining on a monthly basis I think there are far graver problems here than trying to posture yourself for PG supporter of the year.

Truth told PG screwed this pooch years ago and refused to fix it. You defend it.

I don't call the shots on PG or WCG or anywhere else but I can tell you this. There are far less expectations and far less drama involved in other DC projects than this continuous and insulting lack of communication with donors and arbitrary (when there is no explanation) change in plans.

Me... I have no problem. I've taken down my 48C machine and am prepping it for WCG it's their turn. I'll donate a bit to FAH each month but I surely will not continue to donate if they remain unappreciative of their donors. Lip service is one thing, action is another and frankly I've seen the former but none of the latter.

So PG is poor at administration, in your opinion. Do you think that gives you the right to second guess their administrative decisions for the project?

Yes, that is exactly what any sane person does when making a donation. They evaluate how a charity uses their donation. They should look to see how it is administered, the expense ratio, the return on investment, the efficiency of their donation in achieving its goal(reaching the intended target)
Of course many don't bother with this due diligence and trust to luck. Others avoid the hassle by just eliminating the whole donation step entirely.

I think every donor should feel secure in their decision to participate.

At one time there were more than 500,000 people(individual machines) that were convinced of the investment. Now depending on how you count, we are at what 50,000 donors? Yeah, TFLOPS and cores increase, but the number of people continue to dwindle.

Other factors? sure.
Administration and communication large factors? Yes.

I'll say what I have said in other forums again.

The problem isn't donors demanding action now. The problem is that donors haven't demanded action before now

Do you demand that from other projects?

You bet. see my sig.

mdk777 wrote:

So PG is poor at administration, in your opinion. Do you think that gives you the right to second guess their administrative decisions for the project?

Yes, that is exactly what any sane person does when making a donation. They evaluate how a charity uses their donation. They should look to see how it is administered, the expense ratio, the return on investment, the efficiency of their donation in achieving its goal(reaching the intended target)
Of course many don't bother with this due diligence and trust to luck. Others avoid the hassle by just eliminating the whole donation step entirely.

I think every donor should feel secure in their decision to participate.

At one time there were more than 500,000 people(individual machines) that were convinced of the investment. Now depending on how you count, we are at what 50,000 donors? Yeah, TFLOPS and cores increase, but the number of people continue to dwindle.

Other factors? sure.
Administration and communication large factors? Yes.

I'll say what I have said in other forums again.

The problem isn't donors demanding action now. The problem is that donors haven't demanded action before now

Do you demand that from other projects?

You bet. see my sig.

+1 and then some.

Viper97 wrote:Second guess... no. Opt out if I so desire because of poor donor relations? A definitive yes. Judging by the number of machines/cpu's declining on a monthly basis I think there are far graver problems here than trying to posture yourself for PG supporter of the year.

Truth told PG screwed this pooch years ago and refused to fix it. You defend it.

I don't call the shots on PG or WCG or anywhere else but I can tell you this. There are far less expectations and far less drama involved in other DC projects than this continuous and insulting lack of communication with donors and arbitrary (when there is no explanation) change in plans.

Me... I have no problem. I've taken down my 48C machine and am prepping it for WCG it's their turn. I'll donate a bit to FAH each month but I surely will not continue to donate if they remain unappreciative of their donors. Lip service is one thing, action is another and frankly I've seen the former but none of the latter.

I agree that if you're not used to taking orders, it's hard to get used to it. Yes, I defend FAH, It does what it says it will do. They call the plays, design the whole project. I'm perfectly OK with it. I WANT them to design and administer the project, because you and I can't do it. But if we get into a positive attitude, we could HELP them to make good changes to it, here and there.

They thank us donors in lots of posts. Dr. Kasson just thanked us in his last post, again. How many "Thank You's" do you require, anyway?

Again adak,
please feel free to draw me or others into a discussion of our personal opinions.

As you know by now, I can certainly debate as well, and as long as you.
However, it remains for PG to explain their rationale.

It's not the thank you's... it's the way they do it... as if it is secondary to their needs in my mind.

I don't require thank you's. I do require stability and that is something we do not have here. I do require a road map and that is something not presented now or in the past. I do require that this be explained to donors in a matter that we donors can understand and if need be in lay terms.

I see no explanation. I do see a plan and that plan has no explanation.

Imagine the Vietnam War... where you are seasoned vet and a young JG fresh out of OCS says to you, "Men we must charge that hill!"

You - "Ummm why sir?"

New JG - "Because it's an order!"

Now you can choose to charge that hill where the enemy has every advantage or he can provide a plan that is detailed enough to allow at least a modicum of understanding and a chance of success. Or you can come up with a plan of your own. If the young JG refuses to accept it well I'm willing to bet he's not going to get a lot of support from his command.

I see neither offered from PG a plan or a rationale for that plan.

So, do I follow orders or question them? The UCMJ allows me to question an order if it is deemed questionable. (IE... Jump off that cliff and die.)

I'm questioning PG's order to jump off that cliff.

I am not going there, now or ever.

mdk777 wrote:

So PG is poor at administration, in your opinion. Do you think that gives you the right to second guess their administrative decisions for the project?

Yes, that is exactly what any sane person does when making a donation. They evaluate how a charity uses their donation. They should look to see how it is administered, the expense ratio, the return on investment, the efficiency of their donation in achieving its goal(reaching the intended target)
Of course many don't bother with this due diligence and trust to luck. Others avoid the hassle by just eliminating the whole donation step entirely.

I think every donor should feel secure in their decision to participate.

At one time there were more than 500,000 people(individual machines) that were convinced of the investment. Now depending on how you count, we are at what 50,000 donors? Yeah, TFLOPS and cores increase, but the number of people continue to dwindle.

Other factors? sure.
Administration and communication large factors? Yes.

I'll say what I have said in other forums again.

The problem isn't donors demanding action now. The problem is that donors haven't demanded action before now

Do you demand that from other projects?

You bet. see my sig.

Show me just ONE research charity that gives their donors control over how they run the project. I have never seen one. How about any of the BOINC projects, how about WCG - do they show you all these particulars you are demanding?

No, of course not. You have not backed up any of your arguments. You make demands that are unjustified. You have posted dozens of negative posts in this thread. I can't find anything positive in your posts.

mdk777 wrote:Again adak,
please feel free to draw me or others into a discussion of our personal opinions.

As you know by now, I can certainly debate as well, and as long as you.
However, it remains for PG to explain their rationale.

They have explained it.

Kasson posted it.

You read it.

You said it hadn't been posted.

7im then re-posted it.

Now you say "it remains for PG to explain their rationale".

And I'm telling you AGAIN, that PG is not under any obligation to "explain their rationale" further. There are things we could improve on here, but your demands are not reasonable, and imo, they will not be met; not here, and not in any other research DC project.

The coaches call the plays, the players execute them - they don't demand further explanations of the coaches rationale. If you don't like the way the coach calls the plays, you go to another school.

Adak wrote:

mdk777 wrote:

So PG is poor at administration, in your opinion. Do you think that gives you the right to second guess their administrative decisions for the project?

Yes, that is exactly what any sane person does when making a donation. They evaluate how a charity uses their donation. They should look to see how it is administered, the expense ratio, the return on investment, the efficiency of their donation in achieving its goal(reaching the intended target)
Of course many don't bother with this due diligence and trust to luck. Others avoid the hassle by just eliminating the whole donation step entirely.

I think every donor should feel secure in their decision to participate.

At one time there were more than 500,000 people(individual machines) that were convinced of the investment. Now depending on how you count, we are at what 50,000 donors? Yeah, TFLOPS and cores increase, but the number of people continue to dwindle.

Other factors? sure.
Administration and communication large factors? Yes.

I'll say what I have said in other forums again.

The problem isn't donors demanding action now. The problem is that donors haven't demanded action before now

Do you demand that from other projects?

You bet. see my sig.

Show me just ONE research charity that gives their donors control over how they run the project. I have never seen one. How about any of the BOINC projects, how about WCG - do they show you all these particulars you are demanding?

No, of course not. You have not backed up any of your arguments. You make demands that are unjustified. You have posted dozens of negative posts in this thread. I can't find anything positive in your posts.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. mdk777 makes a lot of sense to me and has calmly and effectively explained his positions.

For myself, I hope that if/when PG addresses the points issue they address the whole thing and realign whatever they need to with an orchestrated, top to bottom, scientific approach that is both explained to and understandable by the donors. Enough with the arguing and slapping more lipstick on the ugliest pig in the room to make the squeekiest wheels pipe down for a bit about their points.

Wow .. I'm not BANNED yet

7im wrote:
....

And while some of the scrooges around here begrudged the lack of response over the Holidays while most Universities all but shut down, I do not. Nor was there a lack of response. You just didn't get the answers you wanted.

Waiting patiently...

- School closed for 2 weeks. OK .. They don't have internet at home? They are too poor to pay for it?

- Wait patiently? Thanks to KMAC to bring this at [H]: http://folding.stanford.edu/home/donor- ... board-dab/

Two (2) years ago:

Donor Advisory Board (DAB)
November 9, 2011 by Vijay Pande ·

---

1) Improving communication: What can PG do to help improve communication?
2) Beta testing plan: How to improve transparency without lowering the quality of beta testing.
3) Points consistency: How to make PPD more consistent.

---

Now:
http://folding.stanford.edu/home/author/pande/

Happy Holidays! Looking back at 2013 and forward to 2014 …
December 23, 2013 by Vijay Pande ·

...
we’re hiring a new position solely for donor relations. We hope that this will solve the challenge of the science team having to decide between donor relations and getting their science done, by having someone whose sole role is donor relations.

How much longer should we wait? 1 year ? 2 years? or 10 years?


@Adak,
Are you newly hired by PG for the DONOR RELATIONS position?

It's academia, wheels always move slower than everyone desires.

k1wi wrote:It's academia, wheels always move slower than everyone desires.

They shouldn't but they do

sbinh wrote:Wow .. I'm not BANNED yet ...

No forum polices broken, no banning Usually, if you break the forum policies, you get a warning. If you continue to ignore the warnings, you may eventually be banned, either temporary or permanently, depends on the situation.

sbinh wrote:...- School closed for 2 weeks. OK .. They don't have internet at home? They are too poor to pay for it?...

Am sure that office workers may fall into the following categories:
1) Don't take work home
2) Take work home

Now, let's say that you are #2 category, you follow the thread in detail everyday. However, you can't make any decisions since those involved in the decision making process my fall into the #1 category. Let's say that some of the decision making person follows the thread but others don't. Can you make a decision which impacts the entire F@H points structure without an official meeting/discussion without all the decision makers? I highly doubt that you can. Once the office opens, everyone checks in, they are informed about this situation and thus, the official meetings/discussions begin which may take time. I hope that they won't take too long.