response 120 of 186:

Dec 4 01:20 UTC 2003

There is more to grex than the conference system.  Making the system unusable,
as a user has reported jp2 did, is abuse of grex.

response 122 of 186:

Dec 4 01:28 UTC 2003

I meant a majority of the "old school grex" that are still around. You may
pretend you want new blood and new users and new members. but really, you
aren't willing to change. You get your backs up when something is questioned,
make excuses about why things are the way they are, and when no excuse is
available try to pass it off (and successfully so) because the person who
brought it up isn't a well-liked person. It's almost as if all of you are hand
in glove with each other.

I realise that this isn't how all the old schoolers feel. I've seen a few out
there that actually seem to show some sense of fairness. So maybe there is
hope. But most of them seem to be uncomfortable when anyone else apart from
their clique suggest something or seem to want to break into their little
circle.

Maybe it is just the way I (and a few others) perceive the situation to be.
But if this is the perception we have, maybe there is a problem? Maybe not
in the fact that a problem actually exists but in how people have been
presenting their views. Again you may not agree. Fine. It is your system. run
it the way you think fit.

response 124 of 186:

Dec 4 02:08 UTC 2003

See, aruba?  Told you so. 

Whore.

response 126 of 186:

Dec 4 02:28 UTC 2003

Re 122:  I don't think you've seen a regular argument here before.  We've had
them, including some really serious ones like anonymous web reading of the
conferences.  The difference between then and now is that there weren't people
spamming users.s

response 128 of 186:

Dec 4 07:49 UTC 2003

Speaking as a former board member, former staff member, and occasional lurker
on the staff mailing list, I'm disapointed about how this was handled. 
Jamie's aproach to senidng out the mail was probably wrong, but this was the
case of a known reasonable person who presumably could have been talked to,
rather than jumped on like a vandal.  In fairness to the staff members
involved, this does appear to have been largely a case of miscommunication.

I do hope Jamie gets elected, although I'm not a member at the moment and thus
can't vote for him.  I don't agree with Jamie on a lot of stuff, but I think
he would bring a different perspective to the board that would be quite
useful.

I'm also particularly mistified about the venom with which Eric (other) has
been going after Jamie and others who he disagrees with.  Eric used to be
quite a nice guy, so I'm not sure what's changed in the last few years.  At
this point, whenever I read Eric's comments I find myself really wishing I
hadn't.

response 130 of 186:

Dec 4 12:54 UTC 2003

Re 128> Well put. I agree completely.

As for voting in this election, you can pay up for three months and cast your
vote, if that's what you want to do.

response 132 of 186:

Dec 4 14:29 UTC 2003

Thanks for sharing the data, Jamie.

Sapna - the reason I asked who you were referring to is that I've seen us
go down this road before, where people rail about "what Grex thinks" and
how the establishment is conspiring to keep down new ideas.  It's the
beginning of the end of a constructive discussion.

Personally, I'm not conspiring with anyone.  I just say what I think.  So
if you've got a problem with what I say, talk to me.  And if you've got a
problem with what Eric says, talk to Eric.  I can't speak for Eric and he
can't speak for me.

response 134 of 186:

Dec 4 14:44 UTC 2003

I think perhaps I've simply become less interested in burying the 
intense distaste I have for people who come into a nice place and 
shit all over it for their own entertainment.  Aside from that, I 
have been guilty of making a few pointed remarks about the style of 
certain perople's comments which, though I do not regret making 
them, would perhaps have been best left unsaid.  

Steve, I'm honestly regretful that you feel that way about my 
comments.  I haven't had a lot of actual substance to say on Grex in 
a while, but if I take the trouble to think about an issue and to 
actually post my collected thoughts, I'd like them to be considered 
a reasonable contribution to the discussion at hand.

Sapna, I have to say I am really at a loss as to how you could 
arrive at the position you represent above.  I think it must come 
from a combination or arriving on Grex during a period when many 
members felt the system was under assault by an onslaught of people 
who had no interest in what Grex had been, but only in what they 
could turn it into.  This is not inherently a problem, mind you, but 
it definitely does create a sense of conflict in those users whose 
attraction to Grex lay mainly in its character before that time.  
There are a lot of people who put a lot of time, effort and money 
into creating a place which served a specific purpose, but did it in 
such a way that a concerted effort by a few people without respect 
for the place and its past could change it into something else.

I suppose that is the fatal flaw in any democratic experiment.  The 
very principles on which it is built make and keep it susceptible to 
the tyranny of those who have the will to manipulate the system.

Put simply, Grex is experiencing a conflict of cultures, and the 
people who birthed and raised Grex are trying to preserve the old 
culture because that culture is why those people are here.  
Ultimately, if that culture changes enough, Grex will become 
something else, and those people will be forced to decide whether 
they have any reason to remain a part of it.  There is nothing 
undemocratic in all this, and I think that the staff have done an 
extremely admirable job of adhering to their principles in the face 
of this challenge.  But the staff is human, and each one has his or 
her own way of doing their job, and sometimes this creates the 
appearance of inconsistency.  For example, if I had anything to say 
about it individually, I would never have allowed dah/naftee/
willcome/polytarp/whatever the fuck it is to remain unlocked.  I 
regret the loss of cross as a staffer, but he obviously did not have 
the ability to separate himself from the job he was performing.

With regard to jp2, well, I would have locked the account 
immediately as STeve did not -- for legitimate reasons of his own.  

Locking accounts is primarily a symbolic punishment, as has I'm sure 
been plainly demonstrated, but as such, the reversal of it is 
equally symbolic.  I oppose the unlocking of an account simply on 
the basis that someone who should have known better and has no 
excuse in the world good enough, despite the best of intentions, 
says they're sorry and won't do it again.  I have no problem 
allowing people a second chance, but the price of intentionally 
abusing the system is the loss of the account.  If someone persists 
in the abuse through creation of multiple accounts then the IP is 
locked out, and if they still persist then their ISP is contacted 
and other measures are taken as necessary and available.  That's 
just how we protect ourselves.  If we don't do it, Grex shuts down, 
period.

I think I've said my piece for now.  I hope I've said some things 
that were both true and previously felt but unspoken, because they 
should be said.  Where we go from here is what gets interesting.

response 136 of 186:

Dec 4 14:52 UTC 2003

Other slipped in.

response 140 of 186:

Dec 4 15:55 UTC 2003

I think an even more basic problem is that people simply DON'T READ 
the newuser text.

I think it would be appropriate to have newuser offer something like 
this:

   In order to create a user account on Grex, you'll have to agree 
   to the following.  IF YOU VIOLATE THESE TERMS, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL 
   BE FROZEN.  

   Press return to continue:

[present terms]

   If you agree to these terms, press return to continue.  If not, 
   you may disconnect now.

response 142 of 186:

Dec 4 16:30 UTC 2003

Re #139:  The only effect of locking jp2's account on his run at
a board position was that his campaign statement wasn't visible
in the vote program for part of a day.  I fixed that, before
the account was unlocked, by reconfiguring the vote program to
look for the statement in his jp2test account and letting him
know that the vote program would display it if he put it there
(which he promptly did).

If Jamie's run for the board fails, it won't be for lack
of visibility.  His candidacy has already gotten far more
discussion than any board candidate in the history of Grex,
and we're only three days into the election.

I have to agree with cmcgee and others that some folks are
imagining a conspiratorial old-guard mentality on the part of
the staff that (a) doesn't exist, and (b) even if it did exist,
wouldn't have the final determination in how things are run.
I'll point out that since 1992 Grex has had a bylaw provision
that allows policy to be set by member vote.  This is far more
empowering to the members than what one finds in most non-profit
corporations.  This provision has been exercised a number of
times; various key policies (limits on outgoing internet access,
anonymous conference reading, no quotas in elections, depermission
of the censored file, opening up the board to non-local members
-- to name five) were adopted by member vote, NOT by the staff,
and NOT by the board.  I'm sure there were staff members who
disagreed -- I'd guess I voted on the losing side in around half
of the member votes -- but they became policy because it's what
the majority of voting members wanted.

response 144 of 186:

Dec 4 16:57 UTC 2003

Resp 143: "However, a person that comes into the community post 2000, and
is not from AA or the vicinity, the general idea they get is that grex
is for AA and that's it."

Can you back that up?  I'm honestly mystified where that notion comes from.