response 26 of 93:

Oct 8 20:25 UTC 1997

Nope.

response 28 of 93:

Oct 8 21:20 UTC 1997

I don't think it much matters if the staffer was a he, she, an alien
from Sirgil, or me.  Shit happens.  Everyone on grex staff has made
mistakes.  I have made mistakes.  Nobody is perfect.

Total honesty is not a good policy.  Imagine, for moment, if in this
world, if everyone were suddenly compelled to say *exactly* what they
were thinking, and knew to be the truth, to the best of their ability.
Think about it.  You *must* encounter situations, frequently, where you
think thoughts that would only get you into trouble if you were to
verbalize them.  You *must* encounter situations and facts, which if you
were to describe those facts in isolation to another, would lead that
person to an erroneous conclusion.

There is clearly a lot of interest in "who" deleted those files.  Your
(Richard) fascination is evidence of this.  There are also plenty of
people who would hear this fact, in isolation, and conclude that the
person, plant alien, or whatever, that did this, is an inherently bad
and evil person.  This is human nature, in all its glorious
imperfection.  To compell someone to disclose their identity, under such
circumstances, is in fact nothing less than an attack, however much you
might like to pretend it's merely "honest disclosure", or "something the
staffer should want to do himself".

Richard, I have an admission to make.  Grex has a fatal flaw.  Grex has
a serious and fundemental weakness in its design.  Someday, Grex *will*
be destroyed by this flaw.  Richard, this flaw was not an oversight.
Every founder knew about this flaw.  Richard, I was there, I knew about
the flaw, and I am guilty of allowing grex to be created with this flaw.
Every founder knew about this flaw.

response 30 of 93:

Oct 8 21:55 UTC 1997

Okay, fair enough.  I confess that I stole the root password and
accidentally deleted /etc.  Since richard loved blaming me for
everything when I was on board/staff, this admission should quiet
him downfor a while.  >8)

response 32 of 93:

Oct 9 11:18 UTC 1997

No wait, *I* did it!

I hereby resolve not to work on Grex while in the middle of research for my
pharmacology degree.  

response 36 of 93:

Oct 9 19:13 UTC 1997

There are only two people who have programs that make changes to the
password file.  Unfortunately for your logic train, neither of those
people does any regular maintenance on the password file.

Richard, you made this controversy.  You, and you alone.

Unfortunately, controversy like this is not harmless.  Even if *you*
don't intend to be malicious, and do not yourself intend to question the
integrity and trustworthiness of grex staff, to others, what you have
done, and are doing here, *does* look like an attack.  Remember what I
said just now about "total honesty" and "facts out of context"?  When
people not familiar with grex see the questions you keep raising and
raising, some of them will assume that where there's smoke, there's
fire.  That hurts grex, in more ways than you know.  First, it hurts
grex financially.  People are *much* less likely to contribute to grex
after they read your comments.  Secondly, it hurts grex staff.  At least
one grex staff member very nearly quit because of you, and what you have
done here.  You've started a process here that polarizes grex staff, the
grex board, and grex users.  This process is particularly destructive to
the principles you've stated you believe in.

Grex is, fundementally, not a computer, not a democracy, but a social
organism.  That means it lives and dies according to the whim of its
constituents.  That social fabric has only limited strength.  It is
entirely possible for a single person to `kill' grex, merely by
poisoning the social fabric.  That is the fatal flaw that grex has.
Unfortunately, that flaw is an integral part of the design of grex.  The
flaw is also inherent and inescapable.  Because grex is public, because
grex is group run, because grex is a dynamic balance in a changing
reality, it's impossible to guarantee that grex will exist forever, or
to design grex in such a way that nobody could ever kill it.  The people
who were with grex since the beginning know that grex is mortal, that it
has finite resources, and that it is in some ways very fragile.  I think
it is tempting for people who come and see grex apparently strong and
healthy, to think that it is not important to contribute, or that it
doesn't matter if their contributions are negative, or (apparently in
the case of Richard), it's harmless if that negative contribution takes
the form of words said in a conference.  Sadly, that's just not the
case.

Personally, what Richard has said doesn't usually bother me so much, and
I even agree with many of his ideals.  I do find that in many cases,
Richard's reasoning has serious flaws.  Certainly here, whatever
Richard's intentions were, his effect is directly countrary to his
stated principles.

response 38 of 93:

Oct 9 20:49 UTC 1997

> Ive been trying *not* to make a nuisance of myself the last few months 
> since I came back to Grex.  It is not my desire to be controversial or 
> to have everyone hate me. 

I've noticed and appreciated that, Richard.  Thank you.

> I'm saying this because I value Grex, and because someone needs to be 
> the bad guy and point these things out.  Im not the only one who feels 
> this way.  I didnt even enter this item.  Im just the one who is 
> willing to take the flak to try and see that what is right is done.

Perhaps you're not.  It's interesting, though, that you're the only one 
saying anything, other than a coward who doesn't have the guts to ask an 
honest question in a public way.  Perhaps there aren't as many people in 
a stir about this as you think there are.

Staff, as an entity, has taken responsibility for the gaffe and made it 
right.  We have done that specifically to avoid a lot of accusations and 
mistrust of an individual.  

The board appoints the staff, and they too are aware of exactly what 
happened.  If they think there's a problem, they will deal with it.

The users appoint the board.  If the users as a whole are dissatisfied 
with the way the board (and by extension, the staff) are running things, 
they are always free to say so by calling a vote and "throwing the bums 
out" or by calling an issue to vote and mandating how they want it 
handled.

We don't operate by fiat here, no matter how well meaning.  If you want 
things run your way, make sure your membership is up-to-date, convince a 
majority of your fellow mwmbers that you're right, and call a membership 
vote.  

So far, the membership has endorsed the way things have been done here 
in the past by continuing to re-elect a board dedicated to maintaining 
what we think of as GREX's way of doing things.  When membership 
sentiment changes, so will the composition of the board.

So, to summarize, Richard.  We haer you.  We appreciate your concern 
that GREX be the best it can be.  We even encourage you to raise the 
issues you see -- but when you find yourself a lone voice, please drop 
it.  You may speak for a large silent contingent, but probably not.  If 
they agree with you, they'll say so.  Honest!

response 40 of 93:

Oct 9 20:52 UTC 1997

(Misti slipped in.)

response 42 of 93:

Oct 9 21:05 UTC 1997

Well, I must say I, too, was curious when I heard of this as to the identity
of 'staffer x'.  Had this been a case of malice, or of incompetence, I too
would have pressed the point and asked about his or her identity.  And if I
were someone who had made such a mistake, I would feel inclined to step
forward.  _However_, and this is the important part, I also trust the word
of the staff that this was an honest and innocent mistake, and because of that
I do not feel inclined to point fingers or make accusations.  If it appeared
that staff were not doing their job properly, then I'd have a reason to want
to know 'staffer x's identity, but _this is not how it appears_, and hence
the only interest I have is that of idle curiousity.

response 44 of 93:

Oct 9 21:58 UTC 1997

#43...and in that one piece of mail addressed "baff" was the specific 
name of the staffer given?

Im of the opinion that when something this serious happens, honest 
mistake or not, it should be discussed.  Probably put on the agenda of 
the next board meeting for very very brief discussion.  Staffer X would 
there recount what he did, explain it was an honest mistake, and the 
board would say ok and go on to the next issue.   Even if it was just a 
formality, it would be proper as a point of order, because this was a 
serious incident (I mean how many times in grex's years of exsistence 
has the entire password file been deleted?)  And then the Board could 
address the more important issues, like why havent more backups been 
done and does a formal schedule for regular backups need to be drawn up 
to avoid this in the future?

There is no reason everything shouldnt be laid out, so that everyone-- 
not just staff-- can draw their own conclusions.  Staff wants to close 
off discussion, forestall outside opinions.  Even if this specific 
incident is minor, the fact is that staff's attitude is bad.  Present 
all the facts and let people decide for themselves.  

response 46 of 93:

Oct 9 23:42 UTC 1997

Re #44:  Why, Richard?  To accomplish what?

response 48 of 93:

Oct 9 23:50 UTC 1997

Thanks for the white space Richard.  It was very refreshing after all those
words.