Movieman, we've heard u loud and clear.

Whilst using the full capacity of new tech PC's is not going to be an overnight sensation, the software designers are all too aware, it's just that it's mentioned quite a few times that these science apps have taken a long time to get there (years) and not easily ported to use the expanded features of latest tech CPU's. WCG is working with the scientists to port it and package it for the network, but when the proposals are received to put it on the grid, the science application itself are more or less a done deal. That's how i understand it. Thus what's going to run is probably always going to be a generation or 2 behind.

Have a nice weekend and dont overdo it

cheers

Thanks Harvey...... with a little more of the veil lifted, I'm even more confident, that WCG is the best life-science grid team on todays planet. So much more good stuff to come....really excited (and of course had my long coffee to get the heart in gear ;>)

ketch u laeter

Yes it does

Hope someone is along soon to clean up the other.

my apologies to everyone, i know better!

I've followed most of this thread without comment, so now I'll finally chip in my two-cents worth.

First, because of the difficulty in determining who would be the best qualified -- the fairest, most available, and most capable of deciding whatever issues the board faces -- such an election would be little more than a popularity contest which would probably give the largest teams a pretty unfair advantage. I don't know how many folks here read other team threads; I read _some_, but certainly not even most of them, and not frequently enough. I would expect that someone on MOT would probably have the greatest chance of being elected; now, please don't read anything into that because I'm not saying that there are not great folks on that team. Also, unless WCG creates a "campaign" room and prohibits campaigning in the team and chat rooms, very much of that sort of stuff would probably be so irritating to me that I'd be visiting here a lot less during that time.

Second, because of all of that, we would have little assurance that any elected representative would have a grasp of any of the real issues of importance, such as which project to undertake next, and we wouldn't really know how they would interact with the rest of the board or even how committed they would be in fulfilling any responsibilities once elected. I can remember when I first joined the WCG and was almost immediately _falsely_ accused of trying to recruit members for my team from other teams, which was ridiculous. I tried to defend myself in an intelligent, unemotional and very logical way -- and frankly, I remained pretty polite considering the conduct from the other end -- and it was almost insane the way things blew up very quickly on the other end, quite irrationally, with someone resigning as a CA or team captain, IIRC, and specifically blaming his resignation on me. How juvenile. To settle things down, I apologized (though one wasn't really warranted from my end), and the other fellow who was wrong in the first place never had the good grace to reciprocate. Another member on the other side said I was not like any American or Christian HE knows simply because I <gasp> used the word "hell" in a post (the four letter word for Hades, in case Nelsoc edits this). So, "no", I don't want _ANYONE_ here elected to represent me or any of us; there is too much of a chance of bias that would probably hurt this forum community more than it would help.

Finally, it seems to me that the main reason some folks want something like this just boils down to the settlement of arguments here in the forums; is there any other pressing need that I somehow missed? Is it just about things like fairly awarding points? Or is it about something of genuine importance?

Just my opinion.

Cheers.

Bill Velek