|
Grex > Coop8 > #114: Agenda for September, 1996 Board meeting (7:30 pm at ITI) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
Agenda for September, 1996 Board meeting (7:30 pm at ITI)
| 
Sep 23 21:38 UTC 1996 |
Agenda for 9/25/96 Board Meeting
1. Initial Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
2. Treasurer's Report - aruba 5 minutes
3. Computer Rehabilitation Committee - scott 5 minutes
4. Publicity Committee - mta 5 minutes
5. Technical Committee - STeve 20 minutes
10. Grex has to move - all 60 minutes
12. New Business - all ???
13. Final Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
The Board meetings have been moved back to ITI, since with the students back
the Michigan Union food court is too loud. We'll be in the cafeteria, which
is on the left on the first floor.
Directions to ITI:
Take US-23 to the Washtenaw Ave. exit (exit 37B). This puts you on Washtenaw
Ave, going West. Turn right onto Huron Parkway. This winds and twists for
quite a while. Turn right on Hubbard, then make your first possible left into
ITI (which has a hard-to-read silver sign out front). Watch out for handicap
parking spaces when you park -- there are a lot of them. Inside ITI, go
straight back to the funky toys in the lobby. Turn left, and the cafeteria
is ahead and to the left.
On Huron Parkway, if you reach Plymouth Road, you've gone too far.
Another way to ITI is to take US-23 to the Plymouth Road exit. Go West on
Plymouth Rd, to Huron Parkway. Turn left onto Huron Parkway. Hubbard comes
up pretty quickly from that side of town; turn left onto Hubbard and then take
the first possible left to get to ITI.
|
| 84 responses total. |
ladyevil
|
|
response 1 of 84:
|
Sep 23 23:33 UTC 1996 |
I would like the potential exemption of conferences, as determined by the FW
of each conference, from such things as BackTalk to be discussed, please.
Thank you.
|
robh
|
|
response 2 of 84:
|
Sep 24 06:03 UTC 1996 |
Darn, and I was gonna say that. >8)
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 3 of 84:
|
Sep 24 13:30 UTC 1996 |
Well, then, that's seconded to be placed in the agenda. Thank you!
|
kerouac
|
|
response 4 of 84:
|
Sep 24 19:33 UTC 1996 |
#1, I dont think the fw of a conf has the right to unilaterally decide
that conf shouldbn be Backtalk accessible. Let the users of the
conf decide or just adopt a uniform policy to make all confs
accesible. I think if the board accepts Selena's request, it
is in effect *stipulating* that confs ARE the property of the fw's
AND that stipulation will carfry into many other similar debates.
If Marcus puts out a new version of Picospan, should the fw of
each conf get to decide if users can use the new version or the
old one to read the conf?
This is over-stepping the boundaryies of what an fw is supposed
to do and be if you ask me.
|
scott
|
|
response 5 of 84:
|
Sep 24 23:14 UTC 1996 |
No, it's appropriate to *request*, at least, and see what kind of support is
available. Or, to see whether or not there is any real benefit to the
suggestion once others start picking at it or improving on it.
One possible outcome to *not* allowing Web access might be a competing
Sexuality conference *with* Web access, and perhaps a rather ruthless FW who
just steals (via linking) items from the non-Web Sexuality conference.
|
brighn
|
|
response 6 of 84:
|
Sep 25 03:07 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, it is assumed that an FW is acting in the best interest of the
conference. If they are not, then there will be sufficient complaints to have
that person's FW status be suspect. If the FW begins to act so grossly out
of sync with the perspective of the users of a conf, those users will
conceivably start a new conf with a more appropriate FW>
In short, can it. We've been through this.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 84:
|
Sep 25 11:22 UTC 1996 |
Another agenda item: Grex participation in the next JCC sale.
It's on October 13. Tables are $40 each.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 84:
|
Sep 25 12:26 UTC 1996 |
(I won't be attending the board meeting, but am willing to make
my traditional stop by the JCC and rent one or more tables, if
someone tells me how many to rent. Or if somebody else wants to
do that, that's fine too.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 9 of 84:
|
Sep 25 16:57 UTC 1996 |
#6...where is it ASSUMED that an FW is acting in the best interest
of that conf? Acting in the best interest means accepting the
concensus and wishes of the users ofthe conf. Selena has not asked
the users of her conf if they want to be able to access it via the
web or access it anonymously. And you say,well if they dont like it
they can go to hell and start their own conf. Thats a lousy
pompous attitude. Selena didnt start the sexuality conf, robh
had it before her, and somebody else had it before him. The USErS
of the conf are the constant, theconf belongs to THEM, and if the FW
doesnt like their wishes, it is the FW who should go away.
The Board should retain unilateral authority to decidewhich confs (if
not all confs) are offered via the web or anonymously. The board
should only make exceptions if the majority of the members of a conf
e-mail staff saying they wish these restrictions on access. If a
conf has 40 members and 25 email staff saying they dont want to be on
backtalk, then fine...majority rules. But this is not a decision the
fw should make. It is not the fw's business to decide which program
is ued to read a conf.
|
krj
|
|
response 10 of 84:
|
Sep 25 17:27 UTC 1996 |
OK, now come up with a rigid definition of a "member" of a
conference.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 11 of 84:
|
Sep 25 17:33 UTC 1996 |
#10...easy, any user who has joined that conf and has it in their
.cflist. thanks to picospan, staff can tell exactly who belongs to
a conf.
|
robh
|
|
response 12 of 84:
|
Sep 25 18:31 UTC 1996 |
So people who read the conference in "observe" mode don't count?
Unfair! Staff must recognize people who read in observe mode!
I demand that kerouac step down from the Board and... um...
whoops, sorry, got a little confused there. >8)
|
davel
|
|
response 13 of 84:
|
Sep 25 19:38 UTC 1996 |
Not to mention people who read the raw Picospan files with more or vi or
something like that?
|
dang
|
|
response 14 of 84:
|
Sep 25 21:16 UTC 1996 |
Or those of us who read more conferences than are in our cflist. (I know, you
can look at participations files, but I've been in most of the cfs at one
point or another in my years here, and so I would add one non-voting voice
to the tally, and it might be hard to get a majority. Afterall, if there's
40 people in the cf, and 21 of them don't read it any more, then you can't
have a majority. How do you define "current" user, observers asside?)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 15 of 84:
|
Sep 25 22:07 UTC 1996 |
|
krj
|
|
response 16 of 84:
|
Sep 25 22:39 UTC 1996 |
I have lots of .cf files for conferences I haven't visited in ages,
such as micros and pseudo. I also have a very short cflist;
usually I just wander around and visit the conferences I think
about visiting. None of these files describe my Grex
conferencing activity; perhaps someone might want to parse my .cf
files and decide that I am only a member of conferences I have
entered in the last N months. ??
If members of a conference are going to vote on things,
then we are going to have to define who the eligible voters are.
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 84:
|
Sep 25 23:52 UTC 1996 |
When there was outrage about something I had done in Sexuality, Kerouac, there
was moral outcry and people came in here suggesting a new conference. The
folks in here said, "O.k., who's the FW?" there was much blanknees in the
eyes and much staring at one another. the conf was never formed.
Have *you* asked the Sex conf people and been told that Selena is actin out
of line here?
If FWs really got approval for everything they did, well, then FWs would be
doing nothing but posting "Can I shit now?" items. Members just have to trust
their FWs now and then, Kerouac.
Oh, and members are *hardly* constant. People come and go,just as admins do.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 18 of 84:
|
Sep 26 13:36 UTC 1996 |
I read and post to the Sexuality cf every day, Kerouac, and I have *never*
seen anyone trash Selena publicly. She is doing an excellent job as
fairwitness and contributes well thought out responses to every item.
Defining a member, as everyone has said so far, is very difficult. Does a
"member" post x number of responses in one week or simply read the cf in
"lurker" mode? It *can't* be defined, therefore you can't have a member vote.
<birdy not only felt like throwing two pennies in, but had the urge to be
ultra-immature and tack on "So there!">
|
kerouac
|
|
response 19 of 84:
|
Sep 26 17:28 UTC 1996 |
I wasnt saying an FW shouldnt have theusualprerogatives...just that
in the specific case of access, that shouldnt be an FW's job. If it
is, thenFW'sshould have the right to close their confs right? But FW's
arent allowed toclose their confs, because the board has dtermined
that confs are to be open, and that if any like the staff cf, ARE closed
it will only be through board action/support.
If it is proper for the board to restrict theability of fair witnesses
toclose their confs, it is also proper for them to restrict the ability
of fw's to otherwise influence methods of access.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 20 of 84:
|
Sep 26 18:07 UTC 1996 |
It sounds like the folks in Sexuality have no quarrel with how Selena is
running things even if that means she's running it in an autocratic
manner. Now, if there were complaints and she was either censoring them
or otherwise not being responsive to the conference participants' wishes
then what would probably happen, in short order, is someone would ask for
another sexuality-based conference to be started. Everyone who was
dissatisfied with the status quo would wander away from the conference
Selena fairwitnesses and she would be left to run a very quiet conference.
She would have no say over another conference taking over the same
content. She doesn't own the concept or content.
So, rather than put lots of rules on what fairwitnesses can and can't do
I'd rather just see us continue to make it very very easy for users to
start new conferences. Checks and balances - low-key style.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 21 of 84:
|
Sep 26 19:22 UTC 1996 |
#20...but dont you see that Grex's confing setup is weakened immeasurable
when there are too many confs covering the same topics. The Sex
conf itself was horribly weakened when it wa split into two confs,
so it was rejoined. The argument that "well, anyone who objects to
anything can just go start their own conf" is really short sighted.
Its like saying that if one doesnt like the laws in his town, he
should declare his property to be his own town. Libertarian to
be sure but not realistic. Conferences, like towns, need vibrant
populations. Splintering up into more and more conferences just
because staff wont make even the barest regulations for fw's weakens
grex. It really does.
All I have suggested is that fair witnesses be restricted from linking
items from other confs without that confs fw permission, and that
the board should seek a uniform policy regarding confs offered
through the web. You cant have a strong community without some few
guidelines. If the Board really wants grex to be a strong community,
it has to set the boundaries and protect those boundaries.
|
robh
|
|
response 22 of 84:
|
Sep 26 19:54 UTC 1996 |
Careful what you wish for, kerouac. You're about to get it. >8)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 23 of 84:
|
Sep 26 21:06 UTC 1996 |
At last night's board meeting, we discussed the questions of
1) whether or not to allow anonymous reading in Backtalk, and
2) whether or not a fair witness can decide if a conference is accessible
through Backtalk.
Various board members had various ideas about how to decide this. We all
agreed that this is something for the members of Grex to decide. So, I
announced that as a member of Grex, I'll be putting this question to a vote
of the membership. Some time in the next few days, I'll enter an item to set
the vote in motion.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 24 of 84:
|
Sep 27 01:35 UTC 1996 |
Under-utilized conferences are really a non-problem unless we get into a
disk crunch problem. People will go where there is healthy discussion and
healthy discussion doesn't even need (or want in some instances) a
multitude of voices.
Besides, I don't think any amount of redundant conferences would be as
disruptive as trying to force a hostile fairwitness to do it by the rules
if he or she wasn't into going with the flow. I'd rather trust the users
handle it by simply walking away from a heavy-handed, hostile
fairwitness. This approach incorporates two invaluable problem solving
techniques. One, if a solution calls for a change in behavior, change
your own before depending on someone else to change theirs. Two, reward
good behavior and *ignore* bad behavior.
Now, go sharpen your pencil then write a 500 word essay on, "Is it
really a temper tantrum if there is no one there to hear you whine?"
|