Sorry to start a new thread, but I think these are important issues which could be overlooked in the other thread...


IMO there are questions that should be asked and answered.

This isn't more bleating about whether there should be a green star or not, but some fundamental issues of fundraising.

We all know that Berkeley have issued a request to participants for $750,000 to fund SETI. But Why?

SETI Classic ran for over 6 years without participant funding.
BOINC/SETI has run for nearly 2 years without participant funding.

The drain on resources that was SETI Classic closed 3 months ago. This was supposed to release much needed hardware for BOINC, so costs in this area should be low.

The multi-beam reciever; isn't it already built, tested and paid for? Presumably from previous years funding?

The idea of participant contributions didn't even come from Berkeley. As far as I recall, the idea was first raised by a participant in June/July last year, and subsequently taken up by Berkeley in Aug/Sep.
Now contribution has suddenly become a essential survival feature.

What happened to the funding that kept SETI going last year?
Who (besides participants) is/was contributing?

I've asked several times about Berkeley being more open and making their plans public. It has been said that "if they had the finances, they could do this".
But eleswhere Matt reveals that he has penchent for fast typing and gets landed with doing the 60 page funding request documents. So plans and budgets do exist. Where are they? Download links?

If they're not available on-line why not? What's so secret or confidential about them?

Is money contributed to SETI (as the request states) firewalled for that project only, or shared with BOINC in general?

---

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php

And thankyou all for your donations. :-)

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php

And thankyou all for your donations. :-)

If those figures include the staff and University charges, then those poor Monkeys are fed on half-peanuts at most!

Looks like real Science as usual, and why I moved over to industry...

(I may well be back into research some time much much later :-) )

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php

And thankyou all for your donations. :-)

As I said, SETI 1 is gone.
The multi-beam reciever is done.

Interestingly monies are allocated twice for candidate identification software. I thought all the SETI 1 and SETI II data had been integrated into one master science database and thus would only therefore need one piece of software?

It doesn't really get anywhere near the 60 page funding request documents Matt indicates exist. These presumably contain some element of a plan with timescales.

Presumably last year SETI was funded to similar amounts, where did that come from and where has it gone - someone decided to cease/not renew funding?

I'm not saying that participant shouldn't contribute, but I think we have a right to know why and for what we are contributing in some detail and when we might see the fruits of this investment?

---

As I said, SETI 1 is gone.
The multi-beam reciever is done.

Interestingly monies are allocated twice for candidate identification software. I thought all the SETI 1 and SETI II data had been integrated into one master science database and thus would only therefore need one piece of software?

It doesn't really get anywhere near the 60 page funding request documents Matt indicates exist. ...

Phew! What PLANET are you on?!

Get real!

And, are you happy to work for zero cost for six months to add all the bits and pieces and auditing that you want to see?

For this type of project, those costs are remarkably low.

Now, do you know better?

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

As I said, SETI 1 is gone.
The multi-beam reciever is done.

Interestingly monies are allocated twice for candidate identification software. I thought all the SETI 1 and SETI II data had been integrated into one master science database and thus would only therefore need one piece of software?

It doesn't really get anywhere near the 60 page funding request documents Matt indicates exist. ...

Phew! What PLANET are you on?!

Get real!

And, are you happy to work for zero cost for six months to add all the bits and pieces and auditing that you want to see?

For this type of project, those costs are remarkably low.

Now, do you know better?

Good luck,
Martin

No look Martin, I am not questioning the amounts - I don't have anything like the necessary information to even begin to do that.
It is the principles that I am questioning.

Why should anyone contribute without being given reanonble information as to:

(a) why it has suddenly, out-of-the blue, become necessary to seek finance this way.
(b) What it will be spent on (yes, we know hardware/consumables/programming/support)
(c) When some of these features are likely to happen.

My customers would die laughing if I went to them to fund a project with such a pathetic attempt at convincing them it was a good idea.

I'm beginning to wonder about the psychology of what is going on here, SETI is science, but it's fun science and many people seem to be taking it a good deal more seriously than it deserves. - What odds the bookies are giving on detecting intelligence this way?

Without some serious feedback from the SETI guys, I'm really beginning to question if SETI is worth continuing, or if Senator William Proxmire wasn't spot-on (NASA Golden Fleece Award, remember?) - certainly the word Fleece(ing) seems appropriate at the moment.

---

MikeSW17: It doesn't really get anywhere near the 60 page funding request documents Matt indicates exist. These presumably contain some element of a plan with timescales.

ML1: For this type of project, those costs are remarkably low.

MikeSW17: My customers would die laughing if I went to them to fund a project with such a pathetic attempt at convincing them it was a good idea.

I agree with all these statements... will probably donate in due time (because these costs do seem low), but only when I see it presented in a bit more detail. For my $, I need to see a little bit more than seemingly random numbers, ideally some sort of description for each section. The letter from Arthur C. Clarke et al I got in my email this morning was an excellent start, but I'd still like to see more detail. Not six months of detail, but perhaps half a day's worth of descriptive comments for "what needs to be done" with each item on the list.

For instance, this description "Internet connection and bandwidth charges - $59,700" doesn't make sense to me. I've never known a university-related project that had to reimburse the greater university (in this case, UC-Berkeley) for using bandwidth. Perhaps S@h has to negotiate differently with Berkeley because it uses so much. I'd particularly like to have an explanation for S@h being the only university research I've yet seen that has to provide its own bandwidth funding.

Overall, the costs do seem low, so they do seem to be fairly efficient even if they are not transparent. But they say that corporate funding has dried up... what corporations in the past supported SETI@home that no longer do? Can anyone even answer that very simple question?

---

For instance, this description "Internet connection and bandwidth charges - $59,700" doesn't make sense to me. I've never known a university-related project that had to reimburse the greater university (in this case, UC-Berkeley) for using bandwidth. Perhaps S@h has to negotiate differently with Berkeley because it uses so much. I'd particularly like to have an explanation for S@h being the only university research I've yet seen that has to provide its own bandwidth funding.

SETI has it's own Gigabit Internet connection with Cogent. This price is very low for that connection. I believe it just covers the cost of the daily upkeep for it, and Cogent pays the rest.

---

My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242

First off I do believe the team could enlighten us a little more on this funding, but the following is my take on the subject.

I have read through some of the messages that were previously posted by SETI team, etc. My conclusions to what is happening at SETI are:

SETI I had a 2-3 funding that they streched out to nearly 6 years (I personally find this very impressive that they could hold out that long on the funding they did receive. Looks like good money management to me.)

BOINC received some funding for development by some of the projects wanting to come online, and some other places. SETI II was fed off the coat tails of this (another show of good money management, to me).

The team has been working on getting donations from private organizations, but as we all know, our world has been rocked with some nasty disasters (Tsunami, Katrina, and now Cyclone Larry, etc.), so private companies donations are few and far between, because science is low on the totem pole.

Now they are asking the people. Not that they didn't ask before, because they did, but not as boldly as now.

I have donated in the past and will in the future, when my finances straighten out again. I believe in the project, and the people. I believe they are doing good work with the money they have gotten before. I am sure that the team has done many non-paid overtime hours to keep this project afoot.

I hope people look at the whole picture, and not just today. This has been a well manage project, and I have faith that it will continue to be one.

Just thinking of $750,000 and where it goes. If you consider about 5 full-time employees, several part-time employees, plus hardware maintainece, etc. it's not a lot of money to be asking for. I am betting they already received some private funding (of which may want to remain anonymous) and this is what is still needed afterwards.

Each person must make their own decision. I do not disrepect anyone who does not want to donate, for whatever reason. I am happy you are crunching. I just think that some people believe their crunching is helping fund the project in some way, where it is not. You have given of your computer time, electric, etc. all on your own free will. Crunching helps the project find the information it needs, but it does not help moniterily in any way. You are an important part of the project, but the project needs more. If you help out monitarily, great. If not, life goes on, someone else hopefully will, so that your processors can keep warm. If not enough funding comes it, many computers will go silent, people will save electricity, etc.

Hrm, I wonder if SETI could ask the power companies for some funding? This could be a new angle for them. We have 800,000+ computers in use crunching our data, making you money... Oh well, it's an idea that may not go very far.

I wish you each the best in all future endevors, and hope you may be able to crunch for many years to come.

For instance, this description "Internet connection and bandwidth charges - $59,700" doesn't make sense to me. I've never known a university-related project that had to reimburse the greater university (in this case, UC-Berkeley) for using bandwidth. Perhaps S@h has to negotiate differently with Berkeley because it uses so much. I'd particularly like to have an explanation for S@h being the only university research I've yet seen that has to provide its own bandwidth funding.

At the start of 2002, SETI@Home was using around 25-30 Mbit/s and steadily increasing, and was freely allowed to use upto 30 Mbits alongside the rest of campus-traffic. But, in January 2002, there was a marked increase in other campus-traffic, so during the day was hitting the total they was paying for, 70 Mbits. Because of this campus changed policy, as SETI@Home instead of getting max 30 Mbits was only allowed to use whatever was left after rest of campus, this gave much during the night, but during the day SETI@Home was only getting 5-10 Mbits...

Because of some donations from users, SETI@Home was for a time paying for 20 Mbits, and total usable for campus was raised to 90 Mbits. But, UC Berkeley apparently is paying 300$/Mbit per month, and it was much too expensive for SETI@Home to keep paying for 20 Mbits.


So, SETI@Home did find an isp that was more cheap, but Cogent didn't have any connections at Berkeley. Still, campus did have some other lines, and SETI@Home was allowed to use one of these, so by doing some "plumbing" the Campus/UFO/Cogent-link was opened 30.05.2002. SETI@Home is paying for 100 Mbits, but they're still forced to share with rest of SSL down to campus so in reality can only use roughly 90 Mbits.


Anyway, a quick look shows SETI@Home is now using roughly 40 Mbits, meaning if still used UC Berkeley's isp it would cost SETI@Home 144k$/year...

<snip>

Anyway, a quick look shows SETI@Home is now using roughly 40 Mbits, meaning if still used UC Berkeley's isp it would cost SETI@Home 144k$/year...

And there's another very good point, Internet and Bandwidth charges, do they take SETI enhanced into account? Bandwidth should drop to probably one quarter of the current figure. Is that 'budget' figure for last years use, or this years predicted use?

Either way, the savings on bandwith charges between last year and this year could financce a serious full-time programming push on getting Enhanced out. How can we say, we're just not given the information (as usual) - Where or, more properly when, is Enhanced?

---

I don't know what they spend it on, or exactly how it's spent. They've stated a need for 750K for this year. Will this be a recurring charge or just a one timer as they get the new gear? Maybe, parts are one time and others recurring, that seems likely. I don't know. It's not been stated, but I think the 750K isn't just to come from participants, but also from corporate sponsors. Boinc has a grant and seti has been riding on that coat tail. It might continue to do so, I don't know. I'm sure everyone expects a fall off in the contribution rate, but that might be picked up by corporate sponsors. Heck, who knows, maybe they'll even get more than they've requested. We do know they're operating on ancient gear, and that new ones are needed. We do know they're the largest DC project ever.

I say, give if you can, don't if you can't. It's that simple. I don't think that with the dollar amount they've stated that anyone from the project will be buy a Leer jet to party in, or $6000 shower curtains. There's just not enough to lend itself to too much waste.

I like to see where the money goes to when I donate to other charities (I.E percentage actually helping people and not gobbled up my management fees), but theres just not enough here to worry over.

---

MIKESW17,

Everything you have ever said in these forums is negative. You even contradict yourself and your positions. I spent some time reading the Paul Buck thread about the Wiki. In there you take contradictory tones and positions than what you speak here lately in these threads. I honestly don't believe your motives are genuine....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Internet and Bandwidth charges, do they take SETI enhanced into account? Bandwidth should drop to probably one quarter of the current figure.

SETI Enhanced will communicate 1/4th as often, but the work units will be 4 times the size, correct? So it seems like the bandwidth shouldn't very much change after Enhanced is released.

---

<snip>SETI Classic ran for over 6 years without participant funding.
BOINC/SETI has run for nearly 2 years without participant funding. <snip>

You are wrong about SETI Classic running without participant funding. Here is a link to a page on the Classic Home Page about donations. It dates back to at least 2001.

http://seticlassic.ssl.berkeley.edu/donor.html

Internet and Bandwidth charges, do they take SETI enhanced into account? Bandwidth should drop to probably one quarter of the current figure.

SETI Enhanced will communicate 1/4th as often, but the work units will be 4 times the size, correct? So it seems like the bandwidth shouldn't very much change after Enhanced is released.

The size of the WU both UL and DL will remain the same (350Kish down, and 6-15Kish up). All they do to the WU itself is to change the header to indicate which Application should be used to crunch it. What changes is the depth (sensitivity) of the search which takes longer (much longer).

tony

I think some of this has been answered - at least in a general way.
In any case, it seems to me that, besides costing resources, posting details with timeframes, has all sorts of downside, and little upside for the "management" of the project, and is unnecessary for the casual contributor. I have to say that I a do not understand this focus on forms and budgets.....

(a) why it has suddenly, out-of-the blue, become necessary to seek finance this way.
A) It is not sudden. It has been obvious for years that this project neeeds $, not more CPU cycles. They have said that previous funding is no longer available.

(b) What it will be spent on (yes, we know hardware/ consumables/ programming/ support)
A) What do you want, a line item budget? Will you hold them accountable? Peronally, I think this sort of "pro-forma" is so likely to change, that it is useless, and would just be used to beat management up.

(c) When some of these features are likely to happen.
A) Oh come on - this is not IBM, it is a semi-pro geek project run by people that would rather be doing anything than fill in paperwork.

====snip from Mike==========================
No look Martin, I am not questioning the amounts - I don't have anything like the necessary information to even begin to do that.
It is the principles that I am questioning.

Why should anyone contribute without being given reanonble information as to:

(a) why it has suddenly, out-of-the blue, become necessary to seek finance this way.
(b) What it will be spent on (yes, we know hardware/consumables/programming/support)
(c) When some of these features are likely to happen.

My customers would die laughing if I went to them to fund a project with such a pathetic attempt at convincing them it was a good idea.

I'm beginning to wonder about the psychology of what is going on here, SETI is science, but it's fun science and many people seem to be taking it a good deal more seriously than it deserves. - What odds the bookies are giving on detecting intelligence this way?

Without some serious feedback from the SETI guys, I'm really beginning to question if SETI is worth continuing, or if Senator William Proxmire wasn't spot-on (NASA Golden Fleece Award, remember?) - certainly the word Fleece(ing) seems appropriate at the moment.

As I said, SETI 1 is gone.
The multi-beam reciever is done.

What makes you think SETI I is gone? A lot of that data still needs to be analyzed for what it was worth. It takes time to validate all that old data. They were way behind in validating the data and still are today.

As for the multi-beam receive, can you point me to a place that says it was done? I am betting they ran out of funds for it, before it was done. Now technology has changed, etc. they are able to make it better as they continue to build it. Plus they need to write software, and find a way to get the data transferred from it to Berkeley.

Seti I, Seti II are just terms to be interpreted. Perhaps Seti I is the thing we call Seti/Boinc and Seti II is Enhanced. Instead of Seti I being Classic and Seti II being Seti/Boinc.

<snip>SETI Classic ran for over 6 years without participant funding.
BOINC/SETI has run for nearly 2 years without participant funding. <snip>

You are wrong about SETI Classic running without participant funding. Here is a link to a page on the Classic Home Page about donations. It dates back to at least 2001.

http://seticlassic.ssl.berkeley.edu/donor.html

Thanks, I had either forgotten about that page or never knew about it - it just goes to show how much more in-your-face the current drive is.

Looking at those donations though I see that in the entire period from November 2001 to March 2006, the total rasised was $141K. $83K of that was this month, so I'll assume that is from the current drive.

So, over 5 years contributions of $58K were made, or $11.6K per year.

There's a world of difference - to me at least - between 11 thou and 750 thou.
I'll modify my original statement to "SETI classic ran for 6 years with, to all intents and purposes, zero participant funding."

My original question still stands - why is this 750,000 needed, what will it be spent on, and when will there be some results. To me it doesn't seem much to ask for that information and pledge from Berkeley to keep us better informed.

And I don't see anything Negative in making that request.

---