response 126 of 236:

Dec 27 15:19 UTC 2006

Nice, Anne.

response 128 of 236:

Dec 27 18:21 UTC 2006

No major changes.  No complaining.  Keep your heads down and stop making
waves.  Business as usual.  Drink the Kool-Aid.

response 130 of 236:

Dec 27 20:48 UTC 2006

I totally agree with jadecat on this one. change just for the sake of 
change isnt helpful at all. I mean, there are a lot of things that grex 
has done right and changing those things wouldnt be helpful at all. 

That being said, there are a lot of changes I would like to see. 

response 132 of 236:

Dec 27 23:34 UTC 2006

re #129
 resp:128 Todd, are you suggesting that ALL change is good? 

Is that what I'm saying?  Is that what you read from "NO major changes" and
"No complaining" cynicism of mine?  Where did I say ALL?

response 134 of 236:

Dec 28 04:13 UTC 2006

Regarding #132; Yeah, I really didn't understand that one myself.

Folks, the issue isn't about changing everything because people like change,
it's about making *some* changes (granted, some of which could be major)
because *some* things aren't working.  However, it seems like whenever
someone says, ``some things on grex need to change...'' and then voices
frustration that either (a) things aren't changing, or (b) they're changing
at the same historically glacial pace, there's an almost knee-jerk reaction
to come to the defense of the organization and/or community and say that all
is well, why rush things, question people's motivations and/or intent,
lambast the naysayers, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it...'' and etc.  It's
almost as if the perception is of an attack *on the organization*.  I think
that the thing that gets lost when people do that, however, is that no one
is necessarily *attacking* the organization, just the state of the
organization at the moment.  There's a big difference.

Some people think that grex is great the way it is, and others disagree.
What happened to respecting differing viewpoints and being able to express
one's opinions?  At the moment, there are some people who really feel like
grex has some serious problems.  In some cases, these are long-time
contributers who have donated their time, money, and energy to this
community over the years.  Why don't we give those people the respect of
giving their opinions some consideration, instead of just dismissing them,
which is what *I* perceive to be happening in some (rather notable) cases?

response 136 of 236:

Dec 28 12:50 UTC 2006

Dan, it certainly sounds to this listener like you and Mic are indeed 
attacking the organization, especially staff members.  They have been 
mocked and criticised, had their reputations and volunteer efforts 
slammed, and told they are the ruin of Grex.  Yuck.  These are also 
people who are so adult, and basically nice, that they aren't even 
fighting back.  I suspect their response is to simply try to ignore you.  
Obviously, the present climate here isn't one which fosters digging in 
and donating even more time and effort. Which feeds the whole vicious 
process. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few key volunteers 
walk away. And worse yet, the morale here is so doubt off-putting that 
it would probably deter any reasonable staff candidate from raising his 
or her hand and jumping in. 

Yes, Grex has issues that need to be addressed.  But trashing our 
existing volunteer staff is not the way to get things done.  I think 
this is the point where we disagree the most.  The way to improve Grex 
is to get people thinking upbeat and positive about our community, not 
to bash and polarize.  Identify problems and see them as challenges not 
failures. But you know what, it's a whole lot easier to get up on a 
soapbox and scream about who is at fault than it is to quietly get 
behind a team, ditch ego, develop friendships through respect, and build 
a sense of enthusiasm for problem solving.    

response 138 of 236:

Dec 28 14:37 UTC 2006

Well, Dan seems to be willing to join the team as a board member at 
least. Hopefully that will be a positive experience for both him *and* 
for Grex. 
 

response 140 of 236:

Dec 28 17:32 UTC 2006

We need to have some way to get things done (put together new hardware, fix
mail, fix newuser, implement a spam filter) in less than a year.  Have board
assign a task to a staff member to be done within a certain time and if not
done, assign it to someone else?  Ask for non-staff volunteers to help?
Who would want to join a system (assuming new users are ever allowed in again)
where the motd says outgoing mail has been temporarily suspended for a year?

response 142 of 236:

Dec 28 21:06 UTC 2006

resp:141 Don't let this shock you too much- but I agree with your entire
post. I also agree, as you wrote in 139 that a suggestion for change
should not be met with wrath and a conversation about Oracle. ;)
Unfortunately, I don't have the technical knowledge to know where to
begin to make technical changes so that newuser can be reopened and so
mail can flow again.

response 144 of 236:

Dec 28 21:24 UTC 2006

Regarding #136; Frankly, Mary, I've come to believe that you look at the
situation through the lense of your own biases.  You've made it pretty clear
over the past several years (in fact, ever since I made a comment about
friends of mine who have had abortions later regreting their decisions) that
you don't like me, and since then, I think you've made little effort to
conceal that my opinions carry little weight with you.  So, that you feel
that I am attacking the organization carries very little weight with me.
I'm sorry, but that's how it is.  That said, as a (soon-to-be) board member,
if you'd like to make *constructive* comments and suggestions, I'm certainly
open to entertaining whatever you have to say.  But snippy comments such as,
``are we having fun yet?'' and ``what have you done for grex?'' and
statements of the form, ``all you do is complain and demoralize our
volunteers'' will be ignored from now on.  I campaigned on a platform of
change for grex; I intend to follow through on that.

As the other Remmers said of me, perhaps I need a thicker skin.  I'll grant
that that might be true.  But, if honest criticism -- not to be confused
with ad hominem attacks -- are going to drive away volunteer staff instead
of being accepted in the spirit in which offered, then perhaps it would
behoove those staff people to grow slightly thickers skins as well.  If they
can't do that, then perhaps the best thing for all is to thank them for
their service, acknowledge their extensive and important contributions to
grex, and encourage them to ceed the reigns to other people who have more
energy and will to move the organization forward in the direction that *it*
wants to go, rather than just those few people.  After all, there are tens
of thousands of grex users worldwide; the desires of 20 or 30 in Ann Arbor
Michigan should not, in my opinion, determine the direction for the rest.

Further, the fact remains that many long term grex users and contributers
are dissatisfied with the current state of the system.  That should not be
ignored just because (a) you don't like the manner in which they voice their
concerns, or (b) because you don't like them on a personal level.  To
paraphrase our own Jan Wolter, just because someone says something in a way
that *you* feel is abrasive or unproductive doesn't make them any less valid
or worthy of consideration.

As for building friendships based on respect --- that's an implicit value
judgement on your part that (a) I (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't
already *have* respect for the parties in question, which I can only assure
you is untrue, and (b) that somehow it is more important for, say, me to
seek the respect of others than for them to seek mine.  You get the respect
you earn, Mary, and part of earning it is giving it.  I respect those who
have been on grex longer than me, but I'm not going to play Happy Happy Joy
Joy games when I honestly, truly, feel that it is not in the best interests
of the organization.  Your way has dominated for 15 years, but it is clearly
breaking down.  An organization either recognizes that and responds
accordingly, or whithers and dies.  Which would you prefer?

Finally, it would be a mistake to think that people ``aren't fighting back''
because such an idea is an absurdity: you can't fight *back* if no one is
*fighting* you in the first place.  And no one is fighting in the first
place.  Criticizing, perhaps, but the two are different.  If that criticism
is just ignored, however, then that *is* telling.

Regarding #137; Yes, I am agreeing with you that it's sometimes hard to see
the difference.  And clearly, sometimes the delivery of the message obscures
the message.  However, that doesn't mean that the message is wrong.

You know, I think some people have provided some pretty decent suggestions
for getting others to explore grex; in particular, scholar posted some items
about six months ago to encourage membership, including allowing hosted
graphics on web pages (for grex members), and for doing away or restricting
the ID requirement.  Some solid technical advice has been given for
alleviating some of the woes grex faces on the, er, technical side.  I think
all of these things are wonderful ideas, but *where* is the staff input?
Has staff responded to anything about making email opt-in, for instance, or
setting up a spam filter or virus filter, or setting up RT, or the continued
discussion about changing around the password hashing algorithm, or any of
the other things people have posted recently?  I think that the discussion
in item 27 in the garage conference is kind of telling.  I actually wrote
and tested code to make that change, but discussion just fizzled (and some
of Marcus Watts's responses sort of crystalize the demeaning of reputations
and such that Mary Remmers was referring to).

And I would definitely say that agreement that the current state of things
is not good is clearly not universal.

response 146 of 236:

Dec 28 23:38 UTC 2006

mic, it would be helpful if you spoke for yourself, and did not pretend to
be a spokesperson for the majority of members.  No one has elected you to
speak for the rest of us, nor have you made any attempt to elicit our
opinions.  

I, frankly, don't appreciate your negative, immature style and think that,
rather than providing leadership, you have heavily contributed to the
divisive atmosphere here.  Your "truth" is simply your opinion.  

I believe that cross has maintained a relatively level-headed response in
discussion the problems with Grex, and has consistently tried to keep us
focused on solving problems, rather than on personalities.  

The old way is not working.  Cloistering ourselves for almost a year has
simply lead to a faster decline of our community.  Forbidding users from
asking help questions because they don't have off-site priveleges is also a
fast way to reach a dead end.  

I don't think that mary's sweeping generalizations about the proposed changes
are helpful either.  Some changes to the current situation have to be made.
Not allowing new people to engage in our community is suicidal.  Having an
innactive staff, that cannot solve problems they have been working on for over
a year is also suicidal.  

I'm hoping that cross's election to the BoD will provide some impetus for
those changes.  Perhaps I was wrong to withdraw from the election.  I support
thoughtful changes that allow us to grow as a community.  I support cross as
he endeavors to help the board and staff reach consensus on the methods we
need to use to make those changes.  

I offer my talents to board and staff to try to get these changes made in a
positive way.  But changes have to be made.  The current isolation is not
healthy.