M-Net.CF ... temporary

Jul 12 19:37 UTC 1996

In Agora there was mention of the possibility of a (temporary) mnet.cf.
I'd like to see this because the displaced mnetters need a place to address
a variety of issues otherwise discussed in the mnet policy.cf.  This would
include a venue for electronic notification and discussion of issues in
accordance with the bylaws of (arbornet) [I stand corrected by keats ;]
I am not aware of a stipulation in those bylaws that the on-line discussions
and notifications had to be on the mnet system.

any other mnetters want this temporary place to talk, or is Agora #19
adequate?

response 2 of 26:

Jul 13 00:24 UTC 1996

   If it can help M-Net than I think its an entirely worthwhile
thing to try.  (I was the one who suggested it in agora:19)

response 4 of 26:

Jul 13 01:52 UTC 1996

Instead of a temporary m-net conf, why not a permanent conf for discussion
of running and setting up  of systems like this one.  This conf could also
be where discussion could take place among our Indian and international users
about to how to set up their own grex'es.

Call it the Internet/BBS conference.

response 6 of 26:

Jul 13 04:00 UTC 1996

#0:
   I don't have access to the bylaws at the moment, but I believe while you 
may discuss Arbornet policy, such discussion would not count as part of 
the 7 day discussion period.
   I think the bylaws specifically state, in the section about the seven 
day discussion period, that it must occur in the policy confernce.

#1:
   Please explain what, besides fluff, drift, or illegal activity, is 
"inappropriate" in a general topic conference.

#4:
   I would happily support a conference such as that, but I think that 
would be better as a seperate proposal, since I don't think it would 
overlap much with the M-Net update topic.

   I would like to hear more about what will be included in this 
conference, but I don't think it's necessary, based on what I've heard so 
far.  I think one or two items in agora would be sufficient.
   If we had a conference dedicated to this, we'd also have to clear it 
out after each time M-Net rebooted.  Otherwise, someone joining for the 
first time would be met by 50 some system problem items and left 
wondering what kind of catastrophe did it all.

response 8 of 26:

Jul 13 05:59 UTC 1996

Proposals for new conferences on Grex are routinely granted after several 
days of discussion, unless the proposer changes his/her mind in the 
interim.  I can't think of a single reason why such a conference would 
would be a bad idea. It would be up to the M-netters to decide how to 
resynchronize this conf with activity on M-net.

response 10 of 26:

Jul 13 07:02 UTC 1996

It would be an interesting problem if the bylaws were written so that 
the board could not conduct business while the M-net hardware was out of 
commission.  Suppose, say, that the machine burned up, and the board had to
take action  to buy a new one?

response 12 of 26:

Jul 13 12:53 UTC 1996

What remmers said.

response 14 of 26:

Jul 13 18:43 UTC 1996

Draven: merely that mnet and it's policies/stupidity is not really a grex 
concern/care - I tend to forget that 'forget' works better here than 
under yapp..

OTOH, grex would be 'decontaminating' their own version of 'general' by 
poking the mnet-item into a new conf, thus allowing the refugees to carry 
on at will.

Too, such a conf would then be a FINE place for all the system notes that 
you look for when mnut is down (not dead, but crashed ;-).

response 16 of 26:

Jul 13 23:02 UTC 1996

BTW, who would be FW of this proposed M-net conf?

response 18 of 26:

Jul 14 06:28 UTC 1996

There aren't any.

response 20 of 26:

Jul 14 17:41 UTC 1996

I like the idea of an M-Net Cf on Grex.  I'd even be willing to FW it!

response 22 of 26:

Jul 14 23:38 UTC 1996

Yeah, I'll create it RSN.

response 24 of 26:

Jul 15 11:16 UTC 1996

just waiting for the fw to enter the first item ..... dpc??