|
Grex > Coop11 > #47: Banning a site from Grex; a discussion of when to do this | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 264 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 225 of 264:
| 
Jan 11 18:13 UTC 1999 |
Actaully, you're right about that--the fact that we aren't a good
place for mime stuff is a good limiter, as well as not offering pop
service.
The question about getting more people involved in the conferences
is: how?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 226 of 264:
|
Jan 12 01:33 UTC 1999 |
The question about getting more people involved in the conferences is: why?
Why should very busy people add conferencing to their lives. Why would
someone want to conference with us? Why would anyone want to get involved
with a group like Grex?
"Try it, you'll like it" is not a very powerful slogan. Until we can explain
_why_ conferencing is a worthwhile activity, we will not be very persuasive..
Most people have more than enough demands on their time, and adding another
time-expense to their limited time-budget is not a high priority.
|
other
|
|
response 227 of 264:
|
Jan 12 03:29 UTC 1999 |
my main interest in conferencing is that it is a means for me to be
exposed to ideas and information i might not otherwise encounter. the
other people who participate in this activity each bring their own
interests into it, and through that, i get to see a broader slice of the
world than i otherwise would. and i especially like it because it comes
from individual people, not from organized bodies such as television
studios and corporate interests. there's no agenda, even if some
individuals have one or more. just random.
|
dpc
|
|
response 228 of 264:
|
Jan 12 21:25 UTC 1999 |
Rane has a point about the articles of incorporation. "Computer
conferencing" meant the use of programs like PicoSpan when those articles
were written, and that's what it means now. Conferencing is not e-mail.
I'm afraid we've let the tail wag the dog with e-mail.
We've also lost sight of our corporate purpose. I don't think this
is a big deal legally, but it is something we need to correct.
|
mta
|
|
response 229 of 264:
|
Jan 14 18:47 UTC 1999 |
We should reconsider our articles of incorporation to make sure they actually
convey what they were meant to convey...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 230 of 264:
|
Jan 14 18:51 UTC 1999 |
Or what you want them to convey now? Well, it is useful now and then to
revisit one's purposes. However I suspect there are some strong differences
of opinion on whether it is a purpose of Grex to provide free e-mail to
the world in a mostly unconstrained fashion. People can get free e-mail
elsewhere.
|
aruba
|
|
response 231 of 264:
|
Jan 14 20:03 UTC 1999 |
Well, just because they can get it elsewhere doesn't mean we don't want them
to come here for it. It's possible that if we did stop offering free e-mail,
we might lose our main source of new conferencers.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 232 of 264:
|
Jan 15 00:11 UTC 1999 |
That's one of the arguments. Do we need an item to debate the issue,
and maybe even move toward amending the Articles to make it more evident
that we want to provide free e-mail on an open basis? Since doing this
would be a *change* in the Articles, those proposing to include our
current practice (which isn't clearly consistent with the Articles) should
propose the amendment. It should take just a few words.
|
steve
|
|
response 233 of 264:
|
Jan 15 03:46 UTC 1999 |
I'm not sure we need to amend our articles. Do they need to include
everything we do? I don't see why.
In addition, we're an organization involved with a rapidly changing
technology. Things change, such that what is commonplace today was just
about unheard of a few years ago (consider where the WWW was when Grex
was started in 1991).
Because of this I don't think we should be changing them too often.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 234 of 264:
|
Jan 15 05:16 UTC 1999 |
That is why it is difficult to change Articles of a MI corporation. I
raised the issue, but I have the impression that there aren't many here
that care that Grex just chooses to do things that are not consistent with
the Articles. (The change required could just broaden the purposes to
include electronic communications in genera, with one example being
conferencing. This could include all future forms of electronic
communications. Thereby Grex could just say its purpose is providing
electronic communications of any kind to the public, and drop its
identification as a specific conferencing system, which after all is a
very minor use.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 235 of 264:
|
Jan 15 14:07 UTC 1999 |
I don't want to change our articles. I _like_ our purpose being conferencing.
The fact that auxilary services are used more than our main, purposeful
service does not mean that we should change our purpose.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 236 of 264:
|
Jan 15 16:06 UTC 1999 |
Do you think that auxilary services *should* be used more than our
purpseful service and, if not, what should we do about that? After all,
e-mail is also using a very large share of processing power, investment in
equipment, staff time, and other rare resources, which are coming from the
donations largely of users that make heavy use of the conferences. In
effect, a hundred or so conferencers are subsidizing 20,000 or so e-mail
accounts.
Personally, I'd like to shift that balance a bit.
|
steve
|
|
response 237 of 264:
|
Jan 15 16:54 UTC 1999 |
Thats true, 100 people are in fact subsisting all the other users.
But that was equally true back in 1991 when a smaller group of people,
like around 30 supported all the rest of Grex's user base. It was a
smaller general user base back then without the net but the effect was
still the same: a small number of people decided to support the system
and the majority don't.
Can you explain how you'd shift the balance? I don't understand
that, I don't think.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 238 of 264:
|
Jan 15 17:11 UTC 1999 |
Several suggestions have been made. Something is better than nothing.
What has been suggested is to subject the non-supporters to a low level
and intermittant but consistent 'drumbeat' of reasons to support Grex
with donations or becoming a member. Are there any reasons not to do
this?
|
steve
|
|
response 239 of 264:
|
Jan 15 17:33 UTC 1999 |
Hmm. I need to go back and reread 60 or so responses. No, offhand
I can't think of a reason to not ask for money *provided we don't go
overboard* as has been noted before. I'll have more to say in a bit.
|
remmers
|
|
response 240 of 264:
|
Jan 15 20:36 UTC 1999 |
With #238 the issue seems to have strangely shifted from users
activity (bbs vs. mail) to money. Are you saying it's all right
for users to do whatever they want, even if it's inconsistent
with the articles of incorporation, as long as they pay? In any
case, I don't see how having a higher percentage of paying users
would address the issue of what the users are doing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 241 of 264:
|
Jan 15 21:39 UTC 1999 |
I meant to include in the drumbeat encouragment to use conferencing.
But you are right - there are (at least) two issues here. It is easier
to think of ways to encourage more income than it is to think of ways
to redress the balance between bbs and mail. For the latter purpose I
can only immediately think of making e-mail on Grex less desirable,
by limits on something - time, or bytes, or whatever. That would not,
however redress the balance by increasing bbs - only by decreasing mail.
|
devnull
|
|
response 242 of 264:
|
Jan 16 00:55 UTC 1999 |
Re #241: I currently am a paying member. There is a good chance that I would
choose to not renew my membership next fall if grex decided to try to restrict
email beyond the current restrictions just because someone feels that
changing the email to bbs ratio is important, just for the sake of changing
it, and is going to reduce existing services based on the theory that doing
so will help grex to carry out its main mission.
Of course, if grex really can't withstand the current email load, and something
needs to be done to reduce mail, and the staff does that, I won't complain,
but I will be very unhappy if grex restricts its services for arbitrary
policy reasons.
I have been very impressed by how grex manages to offer a lot of services,
and decided I thought grex was doing good things and I wanted to contribute
a little bit. If grex stops trying to offer the world as much as it
possibly can given hardware, bandwidth, and staff time limitations, it
will have changed in a way that I don't like.
|
steve
|
|
response 243 of 264:
|
Jan 16 01:05 UTC 1999 |
Heh. It will have changed in a way that I wouldn't like, either.
I think that, given a world of cheaper hardware we can continue to do
the things we're doing. Creativity, imagination and a modicum of
insanity will take us a long way. I don't ever want to stop pushing
the envelope on what a system like this can offer.
|
dpc
|
|
response 244 of 264:
|
Jan 20 19:04 UTC 1999 |
Changing the Articles of Incorporation is easy. The Board passes a
resolution amending them. You send off an amendment form to the
state, along with a fee of--I think--$10. Or it may be free to
nonprofits.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 245 of 264:
|
Jan 20 19:23 UTC 1999 |
Not in a member-based non-profit Michigan corporation. A majority of
members (not just of members voting) are required to amend the Articles
of a member-based corporation (450.2611).
|
janc
|
|
response 246 of 264:
|
Jan 20 23:42 UTC 1999 |
I think you also have to send a copy of any changes in the articles of
incorporation to the IRS.
|
jazz
|
|
response 247 of 264:
|
Feb 19 13:36 UTC 1999 |
A number of years ago I wrote a policy recommendation for Arbornet that
summed up my feelings with regards to the same issues that are currently
affecting GREX. Arbornet experienced those issues first, and at least in my
memory suffered them to a greater degree. I wish I still had the original
text, but if memory suffices:
It is important for a non-profit to decide what it considers to be it's
goal, rather than simply openly providing services to the public; if you do
that, then not only will the nature of the system be determined by the whim
of the public (which I suppose is in of itself a goal), but the public will
also not be satisfied.
When it comes down to banning or restricting things, it's helpful to
ask - does this thing contribute to the goal? Does it consume resources that
are being used to further the goal? And, lastly, does it encourage users who
"bring back" to the system, in tangible financial ways, or in less-than
tangible ways by advancing the non-profit's goals.
If it furthers the goals of the non-profit, it is an expenditure, and
should, like any expenditure, be considered carefully.
If it does not further the goal of the non-profit, but does not consume
resources that are in contention, it's not worth worrying about.
If it does not further the goals of the non-profit, and consumes
resources, but doesn't provide a service or attraction for users who wind up
"giving back" to the non-profit, then it's interfering with the goals of the
non-profit and should be a serious candidate for restriction or banning.
But these are just my wonky ideas; I'm interested in comments.
|
scott
|
|
response 248 of 264:
|
Feb 19 15:47 UTC 1999 |
I like the idea of Grex as something like a public park. If the park fills
up with people flying kites, that is OK. If it fills up with picnicers, that
is OK too. A mix is good also. But I wouldn't want the park people to have
a "goal" such as "The park will be used for kite flying, and other use is
discouraged".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 249 of 264:
|
Feb 19 21:38 UTC 1999 |
Are dogs allowed?
|