|
Grex > Coop8 > #78: Agenda for the June 26, 1996 board meeting (7:30pm, UM Union food court) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
Agenda for the June 26, 1996 board meeting (7:30pm, UM Union food court)
| 
Jun 19 21:59 UTC 1996 |
Agenda for 6/24/96 Board Meeting
1. Initial Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
2. Treasurer's Report - aruba 5 minutes
3. 501(c)3 Committee - aruba 5 minutes
4. Computer Rehabilitation Committee - scott 5 minutes
5. Publicity Committee - mta 5 minutes
6. Technical Committee - STeve 20 minutes
10. Newsletter Report - mta 5 minutes
11. Auction Committe - popcorn, robh 5 minutes
12. Grex has to move - all 30 minutes
13. People's Food Coop discount - all 10 minutes
14. Changing to Centrex service - all 10 minutes
14. New Business - all ???
15. Final Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
The board meetings are moving! New location is the University of Michigan
Union, in the food court downstairs. We're doing this because summer and the
resulting lack of students should make it quiet enough to use.
The public is welcome to attend.
Hot issue this time is that Grex needs to find a new place to live, fast.
|
| 94 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 1 of 94:
|
Jun 19 22:30 UTC 1996 |
You don't really think we'll have that discussion finished in
30 minutes, do you? >8)
I'd suggest moving the Centrex item to immdeiately after the
moving item, since the two do tie in to each other.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 2 of 94:
|
Jun 20 18:33 UTC 1996 |
What time is the meeting?
|
robh
|
|
response 3 of 94:
|
Jun 20 19:23 UTC 1996 |
The subject line says 7:30.
|
ajax
|
|
response 4 of 94:
|
Jun 24 06:50 UTC 1996 |
Please add the issue of enabling tel/write/chat/talk users to
specify from whom or where they'll accept or deny requests for
those services.
Also, Dave suggested board discussion of the possibility of
seeking shared space with M-Net...sounds like part of the
"moving" item already on the agenda.
|
scott
|
|
response 5 of 94:
|
Jun 24 11:11 UTC 1996 |
We did discuss the .yes/.no file issue at the last board meeting, and ended
up wondering if anybody was going to bother writing it. We could discuss it
again and push for a vote on it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 94:
|
Jun 24 11:13 UTC 1996 |
Is adding .yes/.no capability to chat a board issue?
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 94:
|
Jun 24 12:30 UTC 1996 |
I think the Board indicated last time that it was a good idea,
though it wasn't voted on. At this point, I'd consider it a
staff issue, not a Board issue.
|
brighn
|
|
response 8 of 94:
|
Jun 24 14:37 UTC 1996 |
re #5: that seems to be a recurring problems around here ={
That's understandable, what with volunters, but unfortunate.
|
scott
|
|
response 9 of 94:
|
Jun 24 16:07 UTC 1996 |
Well, we can't just order somebody to do it. Janc expressed some interest,
but not any kind of promise.
I guess we could make official policy that we would use it if we had it, but
we have to have it before we can use it.
|
ajax
|
|
response 10 of 94:
|
Jun 24 19:40 UTC 1996 |
Ah, I had the impression a decision was delayed pending further
discussion. If it's already decided to use the capability when it's
available, then I withdraw the suggestion to discuss it further.
|
scott
|
|
response 11 of 94:
|
Jun 24 21:37 UTC 1996 |
I think we decided to
a) see if anybody wanted to write it
b) in the meantime, argue about some more.
In others, we took the "grex" option. :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 94:
|
Jun 24 21:40 UTC 1996 |
I raised the point because traditionally board approval hasn't
been a prerequisite for software changes. I'd like to see it
stay that way.
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 94:
|
Jun 24 21:42 UTC 1996 |
(Scott's #11 slipped in.)
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 94:
|
Jun 24 23:09 UTC 1996 |
Here's the "thinking slowed down to typing speed" version of my #11:
I think we decided to
a) see if anybody wanted to write it
b) in the meantime, argue about it some more online.
In other words, we took the "grexian" option. :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 94:
|
Jun 25 14:27 UTC 1996 |
I've volunteered to write it (see item 52 response #127), so (a)
is taken care of.
|
tsty
|
|
response 16 of 94:
|
Jun 26 08:16 UTC 1996 |
just the .nowrite andwith a limited ## of 'includeds?"
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 94:
|
Jun 26 12:40 UTC 1996 |
Nah, I'll do both the .yeswrite and the .nowrite.
|
davel
|
|
response 18 of 94:
|
Jun 26 13:57 UTC 1996 |
Thanks, John. Very much.
|
tsty
|
|
response 19 of 94:
|
Jun 26 17:05 UTC 1996 |
but implement only the .nowrite? how abouthte restricted number
of 'includeds?'
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 94:
|
Jun 26 17:12 UTC 1996 |
Nah. Personally, I think .yeswrite is a better option to have
available than .nowrite. Only reason I can think of to limit the
length of those files is possible performance issues (long
lookups).
|
jenna
|
|
response 21 of 94:
|
Jun 26 21:14 UTC 1996 |
I agree with John cmpletely.... .nowrite is only good
for known long term "enemies" something we don't want to promote.
.yeswrite is good for keeping out random chats. then again,
you might want to alternate between them if say, you were
only having problems with the same few people night after night, or
were being harassed by entire countries (as an exaggeration)
as for limits? maybe it does make sense to have a limit
on your .nowrite list, but it really doesn;'t make sense
to have a limit on your .yeswrite list.
I mean, imagine a desperate person sick of ntalks and tels aking
for cybersex and talks about nothing in foreign language from
people who are sometimes rude & always persistent, finally
tunring !mesg whatever on so thir yeswrite list
was activivacted. They want to put as many people
as they can on the .yeswrite list (who they know and
want/need to talk too).
|
kerouac
|
|
response 22 of 94:
|
Jun 26 21:34 UTC 1996 |
Shouldnt there be a board vote before procedding wth any code changes,
even if its only a formality.?
I just think its unwise to assume that something is a consensus based on
th ose responses in one discussion. It probably is in this case, but may
as well not take chances.
Also, couldnt changint the default !tel prompts be done at the same time
as long as the code is being tampered with? I mean adding options to the
current "...is not accepting messages!" ..
"....is reading mail right now, please try again later"
".....is conferencing right now, please t ry again later"
"....is only accepting e-mail communications for the time being"
Along those lines...
|
scg
|
|
response 23 of 94:
|
Jun 26 21:50 UTC 1996 |
I can just see it... some random utility we have running here goes from
version 2.23.5 to 2.23.6, and we have to have a board vote on whether to
upgrade....
|
adbarr
|
|
response 24 of 94:
|
Jun 26 22:18 UTC 1996 |
Especially if the board is, basically, not relevant.
|