|
Grex > Coop11 > #115: Did the Board overstep its authority? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 73 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 25 of 73:
| 
Jul 30 17:55 UTC 1999 |
Re #23: I hope that would have been the case. It reminds me of those
sci-fi movies where everyone's doomed, but the government doesn't tell them
to avoid a panic.
|
mary
|
|
response 26 of 73:
|
Jul 30 18:31 UTC 1999 |
I feel badly that I didn't enter an item, weeks ago, about
what we should do if the decision didn't go our way. I had
given it some thought, but not a lot. I'm usually pretty
sensitive to "group-think before Board votes", but this one
slipped by, maybe out of the firm belief we wouldn't need
a fallback plan, and maybe out of denial we'd be put into
such a hard place.
I agree this discussion should have been initiated right
after we voted to join the suit. We all dropped the ball.
|
jep
|
|
response 27 of 73:
|
Jul 30 19:02 UTC 1999 |
Thank you, Mary. I'm sure it seems like I'm trying to drag someone,
anyone, over the coals, but I'm not. I appreciate what you did (I
disagree, but I still appreciate the work). I support the Board
overall. It's a good board. I think the actions taken by the Board
about shutting down Grex were one wrong thing after another, though. I
hope nothing similar ever happens again.
STeve, you mention "likelihood" pretty prominently in your explanations
of why there was no announcement. There's talk in all of the items
about the shutdown policy about how it wasn't "likely" that Grex would
felt it needed to shut down at all. Why wasn't it reasonable to use
"likelihood" in evaluating the possibility of legal effects against Grex
if the law *did* take effect?
To cover the unlikely possibility of the law taking effect, and the
further unlikely possibility that if it did, there might have been
consequences for Grex if it did, the Board voted to shut down the
system, and then because it was all so unlikely, the Board decided not
to inform most of those who would be affected. Isn't this pretty
screwy?
The Grex coop conference is not the place for correcting the Michigan
State Legislature. I disagree with what they did, but that does not
excuse the Grex board from being reasonable and doing what it should.
|
steve
|
|
response 28 of 73:
|
Jul 30 20:18 UTC 1999 |
John, to what extend does the board need or should inform people,
in the area of unpleasent things? There is always the possibility
that a vandal will come here with some new trick for breaking into
a SunOS system, and systematically everything here. Should the
board have blaring messages in the MOTD, stressing this? God knows
we have enough vandals that pass by here every day, trying to get
in, so to speak.
Really, it comes down to accessing probabilities vs. possibilities,
and figuring out what to do about them. I stand by my decision on
this, but wonder what people in general think. I konw you think the
board messed up, and would like to hear what others think.
|
mwg
|
|
response 29 of 73:
|
Jul 30 20:59 UTC 1999 |
I must be wierder than average here. I was operating on the assumption
that Grex would vanish (at least for a time) if the law was upheld, at a
minimum because lots of material would need to be removed to prevent users
from being blasted for old material. It never occurred to me that it
might stay up uninterrupted. I think you can derive my opinion of the
board action from this.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 73:
|
Jul 30 22:19 UTC 1999 |
Re #28: A shutdown due to vandals isn't forseeable. This was forseen
enough that there was a contingency plan made especially for it. There must
have been a feeling that there was a reasonably large chance it might
happen. Downplaying the risk in an announcement would have been fine, but I
think people should have at least been aware of the possibility that the
system might go down for a considerable length of time because of this. I
really hadn't thought about it enough for the possibility to occur to me.
If you forsee, ahead of time, you're going to have to take the system down
for a considerable length of time on a certain date to replace a disk, or
something similar, you put notice in the MOTD beforehand. Why is this so
different?
|
steve
|
|
response 31 of 73:
|
Jul 30 23:04 UTC 1999 |
The difference, as I see it was based on our collective knowledge we
simply did not believe that we'd have to use this, but voted on it "just
in case". Had we thought there was something of a chance, we'd have put
that in.
For me, it was a remote enough chance of this happening that I was
comfortable with doing it this way. Had I thought there was a real chance
of it going the other way, I would have put the announcement in, myself.
But we know from experience that when we put alarming notices in
the MOTD we get a flurry of responses, and I really didn't want people
to misconstrue Grex's shutting down because of this law.
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 73:
|
Jul 31 00:46 UTC 1999 |
Listen,
The US government developed a policy that stated that we would launch a full
nuclear assault on the Soviet Union if we became convinced that thay had
launched one on us. (Mutually Assured Destruction)
That does not mean that the US is *ever actually going* to launch a full
nuclear assault.
Don't let your emotional response to the *hypothetical* situation of a GREX
shutdown color your perception of reality.
Dave, how can an attorney *possibly* expect to be successful by arguing from
an ignorant emotional standpoint. That is, unless you are making an
emotionally based argument as a matter of strategy, in which case I have to
wonder what your goal is, other than to stir up a shitstorm, which does nobody
any good, including you, because you look like an idiot for doing it!
jep, I think your position in #0 has been fully addressed...
|
jshafer
|
|
response 33 of 73:
|
Jul 31 06:17 UTC 1999 |
resp:28 - What do I think? Hmm, OK, so it should have been discussed
beforehand. It wasn't. A few people have apologized for that
oversight. As someone (Jan?) pointed out, people were busy preparing
for the trial and such. I think the board did the right thing, both in
the contingency plan and in avoiding panic-inducing MOTDs.
resp:32 - "...because you look like an idiot for doing it!" - Well said.
|
dpc
|
|
response 34 of 73:
|
Aug 2 15:53 UTC 1999 |
Thanx for your comments, Mary!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 35 of 73:
|
Aug 6 03:32 UTC 1999 |
Since I personally happen to monitor coop, I was aware beforehand that
grex might shut down. And if the injunction hadn't occurred, I
would have had to think about what I might be able to do to cope with
e-mail being inaccessible (yes I know that technically it was removal
of public access, but it wasn't clear that mail .forward-ing would have
been processed, that mail would even have been accepted). In hind
sight, I think there *should* have been some well-worded blurb in MOTD
about what might happen, to give forewarning. This notion of "don't
panic the cattle", regardless of perceived past experiences, seems to
fly in the face of assuming that members/users are reasonable, know how
to act appropriately to conditions. I don't buy it, I don't accept it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 36 of 73:
|
Aug 6 04:19 UTC 1999 |
Should we put something in the MOTD every time a thunderstorm approaches Ann
Arbor, since lightning might strike the building Grex is in and fry the
computer?
It seems clear to me that part of the decision of whether to put up a warning
message is a judgement of how likely the disaster is to happen. We all
thought this one was pretty unlikely.
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 73:
|
Aug 6 04:32 UTC 1999 |
Lightning storms are relatively unforseeable and generally only last a few
hours. This was forseen and could have lasted days or weeks. It's not the
same thing. Besides, this was a rational decision, not an 'act of God' like
a storm.
You seem to have little faith in users' ability to handle the truth.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 38 of 73:
|
Aug 6 05:35 UTC 1999 |
Ditto #37 - cut this bullshit of "should we warn for everything that might
affect grex?" - it's sarcastic and patronizing.
|
jep
|
|
response 39 of 73:
|
Aug 6 15:31 UTC 1999 |
If the scenario was unlikely enough that people didn't need to be
notified that the Board made a special decision about it, then it was
unlikely enough that no special decision was needed.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 73:
|
Aug 6 16:50 UTC 1999 |
<sigh> I'm sorry if I was sarcastic and patronizing. I am just a bit fed
up with all this paranoia, and frankly I don't get the difference between
the law and a killer thunderstorm. Both are "acts of God", as far as
we're concerned. Both are unlikely. Sure, we knew when the law would hit
if it was going to, but we had no more expectation that it actually would.
I think it was a judgement call on whether to put a note in the MOTD, and
I think we made the right call.
John, do you think every time the government makes a disaster plan (say,
for invasion by aliens, or an earthquake in the midwest, or a Russian
attack) they should put lots of ads on TV for several days to let people
know about it? You seem to be saying, in #39, that if it's not worth
doing that, then it's not worth forming a plan. The logic behind that
escapes me.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 73:
|
Aug 6 17:27 UTC 1999 |
It just seems to me that the assumption is that the annoyance of causing a
*possible* overreaction is worse than the inconvenience people will have if
their email is suddenly cut off with no warning whatsoever, and no chance to
make alternate plans. That bothers me a little. I do depend on my email
access here, you know. Having it go down for an undetermined length of time
is troublesome. A few days wouldn't matter, but there was the feeling this
could last a while if the law did go into effect.
I accept, however, that it was a judgement call. I won't press the issue
further.
|
aruba
|
|
response 42 of 73:
|
Aug 6 18:43 UTC 1999 |
In probability terms, the "expected cost" of putting a note in the MOTD was
judged worse than the expected cost of not doing it. In other words,
P(overreaction to MOTD) * (cost of overreaction)
> P(law goes into effect) * (cost of law going into effect)
The judgement part is in assigning numbers to all those quantities.
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 73:
|
Aug 6 18:47 UTC 1999 |
Depends on the cost to whom, though. Obviously it doesn't inconvenience the
person who'd have to do it if no message is put up -- they already *know*
what might happen. It could inconvenience others greatly, though.
|
steve
|
|
response 44 of 73:
|
Aug 6 19:08 UTC 1999 |
I don't think Mark was sarcastic or patronizing, or I'm the same type of
sarcastic soul, I guess. Mark says it very well; we prepared for something,
"just in case", but truely thought it was exceedingly unlikely.
I stand by Mark's comments 100%.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 45 of 73:
|
Aug 6 22:04 UTC 1999 |
Well, I think the baff needs to hear that at least some of the user base is
saying "If you plan for/know about a grex outage at a certain time, then
announce it clearly in advance." If there is not an agreement to do that,
then in the future I guess those users will have to take it upon themselves
to alert other users as best they can, which as far as I can see would only
be via agora bbs items such as "grex announcements".
|
steve
|
|
response 46 of 73:
|
Aug 6 22:07 UTC 1999 |
Kevin, in retrospect I think we the board could have done a better job
on this.
Specifically, we should have talked about this in coop, weeks before
the board meeting.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 47 of 73:
|
Aug 6 22:12 UTC 1999 |
BTW, I have no criticism of the decision made. I just recommend that in the
future such decisions, however unlikely they need to be implemented, should
be clearly communicated, come what may (I refer to the decision to take grex
"off-line", not the decision declining to announce that in MOTD).
|
jep
|
|
response 48 of 73:
|
Aug 7 03:06 UTC 1999 |
Maybe I should quit restating my point. I've said the same thing
several times now, and doubt if I can add much to what I've said. I am
frustrated because I feel like I'm being misunderstood, but I'm not
getting any better understood by explaining my position yet again.
|
steve
|
|
response 49 of 73:
|
Aug 7 05:09 UTC 1999 |
John, I think the problem is that we're seeing this really very
differently. I'm not sure how to synthisize your point of view,
which I can usualy do during a debate like this. I'm going to keep
trying however.
|