Folding Forum

These problem are not going to be resolved in a few days. Most of us have been folding for years, some, for a decade or longer. We need to be patient. Whatever PG decides, it will require some careful thought, and possibly even a job hire. These things don't happen overnight. I mentioned earlier that we should expect progress by the end of January, and that's still my hope and expectation.

For those shutting down or leaving FAH, I wish it were otherwise, but I understand. FAH has always been a rather strict hierarchical organization. Such a structure causes a lot of stress for some people, who are not used to a more rigid organization, especially one that makes relatively sudden changes, like FAH does. There are lots of worthwhile projects over at WCG, as well as at a few other BOINC projects. Some have a well designed communication practice, but all of them are strict hierarchical organizations. You won't be able to make demands and get compromises from them, in any way. The good part is, you shouldn't need to make demands. They're well designed projects, and they don't make sharp turns like FAH does.

For those who will be staying with FAH - Let's fold some wu's.

Best wishes to Jinn, and all the others who are living with serious illnesses.

Nice job at attempting to maintain status quo. You might actually get that position [sic!]

Sorry to say but I'm busy Crunching WCG and BOINC projects.

My 4P-48C isn't going to be affected by this change but I must say with the lack of information, poor communication and above all else the 'your a donor' shut up attitude and holier than thou approach to donors it was inevitable.

I've enjoyed my time with FAH and I hope our work has helped but frankly right now if I had my way I'd take it all back because I don't consider FAH worthy of my time or effort anymore.

I'm out as well, all Servers are totally dedicated to World Community Grid. It is not a short term move while waiting for PG to speak or a strike. As a donor/enthusiast, the things raised in this book of issues (and all the times past) are not trivial, and they do affect donor satisfaction supporting this project. I don't need (or want) to have "faith" in PG. These issues should have been addressed long ago (many, many "overnights" ago). There are limits to what people will endure, whether PG can ever come to realize that or not. While some people are more tolerant than others, it makes neither side of the scale wrong. Many donors are tired of the same old issues resurfacing with no action taken to address them. PG has already taken too long to take action from past issues of the same things. What they have now, is the "last straw" effect and it should have never been allowed to get to that level.

To Bruce and others that feel they are not heard, I heard you and did not dismiss your feelings. I just don't feel the same way that you do about PG. What this all boils down to is people finding an atmosphere where they enjoy donating to a good cause. For some, that atmosphere is fine here and for others it is no longer enjoyable. A good question was raised a page or so back. At what point of donor loss does PG actually feel they have a major problem with donor interface and structure of the project? I can't say that they have realized it yet, but when it comes, the paradigm wave will have already passed them by.

We understand that donors may decide to redirect their priorities. We are thankful for all donations that people have made in the past.

On a separate note, there has been a fair amount of discussion about ways to make the points system (and large work units) more consistent and predictable for donors. All of these things rest upon Dr. Pande's approval, so unfortunately I can't say anything until he makes the call.

kasson wrote:We understand that donors may decide to redirect their priorities. We are thankful for all donations that people have made in the past.

On a separate note, there has been a fair amount of discussion about ways to make the points system (and large work units) more consistent and predictable for donors. All of these things rest upon Dr. Pande's approval, so unfortunately I can't say anything until he makes the call.

And will what he decides be simple dictated to us or might we have an opportunity to comment? Web-based polls are free to set up these days...

HaloJones wrote:

kasson wrote:We understand that donors may decide to redirect their priorities. We are thankful for all donations that people have made in the past.

On a separate note, there has been a fair amount of discussion about ways to make the points system (and large work units) more consistent and predictable for donors. All of these things rest upon Dr. Pande's approval, so unfortunately I can't say anything until he makes the call.

And will what he decides be simple dictated to us or might we have an opportunity to comment? Web-based polls are free to set up these days...

I concur... I think a web vote would be an easy and good way for pg to decide what to do

craigyas wrote:

HaloJones wrote:

kasson wrote:We understand that donors may decide to redirect their priorities. We are thankful for all donations that people have made in the past.

On a separate note, there has been a fair amount of discussion about ways to make the points system (and large work units) more consistent and predictable for donors. All of these things rest upon Dr. Pande's approval, so unfortunately I can't say anything until he makes the call.

And will what he decides be simple dictated to us or might we have an opportunity to comment? Web-based polls are free to set up these days...

I concur... I think a web vote would be an easy and good way for pg to decide what to do

Dr. Kasson's first line sums it up. PG has spoken on the matter and no poles will change their mind.

Any more comment on the subject would be futile.

And that's why people in the thread keep saying they are leaving .-.

Just curious as to why PG would even use a poll that would not help the work get done any more than the current system does. The current point system works we as donors have to make a choice as to what we do same as PG does. They can present what they have to offer then we chose what we want to do as far as that goes. Better communicating with the donors as far as expectations and requirements of equipment would be good and would probably take care of most of the problems.

As far as getting the work done PG knows which work needs to be done and how soon it needs to be done. they just need to make a road map of that and stick to it, If their needs change and they need more of a certain type of work done than another they can just make an announcement and raise the points value of the work they need to do. The value of any given type of work or machinery should never be lowered unless there is a road map that say it is going to happen at a given date, if that has been done then donors have calculated that into their investment and know it is coming, (their equipment has not suddenly been devalued for no good reason) and without prior notice of when to expect it.

Some of this is donor driven most people know when they build a system at the bottom end of the spectrum that it is going to have a EOL that may be just around the corner, if there was clear communication they would know when that day is and then be able to decide whether to build or not. Not having that is really not fair to the donor.

Most all of the problems I have seen within F@H have been communication / PR related, people tend to blame the point system but in reality that is not where the problem lies.
I do not personally care what PG uses as a point system, what I do care about is that it is well communicated, That I know what to expect and that I am treated decently when I communicate in whatever form they choose to communicate with the donor public, (FF. EMail etc.)

I am encouraged by Kasson's post he has communicated that there is some kind of a fix that has been presented and or being reviewed so that in itself says they are listening and working on some type of a fix. I would also say that if PG is in a loose, loose situation here I do not see any way around it, letting past concerns sit around and stew for so long was not such a good idea and is and will continue to cost PG in loss of donors until those issues are fixed. The longer it takes the higher the cost will be.

kasson wrote:We understand that donors may decide to redirect their priorities. We are thankful for all donations that people have made in the past.

On a separate note, there has been a fair amount of discussion about ways to make the points system (and large work units) more consistent and predictable for donors. All of these things rest upon Dr. Pande's approval, so unfortunately I can't say anything until he makes the call.

That first sentence pretty much says thank you for your donation that let us land some juicy grants, but don't let the door hit you on your way out.

The second one is pure political ass covering. "Its not my decision but Dr. Pande's so don't blame me."

Neither one has any of the information that people has been asking for.

Its been 12 hours since I first posted in this thread. Looking at the donor computer count there have been an addition 420ish systems removed from F@H. Mine has not been one of them, yet.

Yup. There's another quote that clearly shows where Folding@Home's special spot for donors is:

VijayPande wrote:If we had the funds to build what they (Facebook and Google -- ed.) do, we wouldn't be running a volunteer distributed computing project, but just computing directly on that infrastructure, as we have done in a recent collaboration with Google.

Reference: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=25495&start=105#p255912

BTW, tampering with client count as reported by stats page is very easy (only upwards, though) so it's not a very good metric

Grandpa_01 wrote:Just curious as to why PG would even use a poll that would not help the work get done any more than the current system does.

I think running polls, even on this forum, would give people, if not true input, the illusion of having some say in the project, and it would be a super easy way for the powers that be to see what their donors are thinking, about them, and the project.
Polls only take a few seconds to set up, and had they done one before creating the deadline, and said that they needed to create the deadlines anyway for a specific reason after people didn't think it was a good idea, I don't think there would be such an uproar.... Idk, one mans opinion

Systemic/policy issues (largest issues in Folding@Home by far) are not very suited to be solved via polls...

So just let us comment then before it gets enforced from on high!