response 25 of 61:

Oct 6 21:16 UTC 2006

re #24
 Ahem.  "The membership" speaks only through elections or user
 initiatives.  Say "a member explicitly requested..." or "a couple of
 members requested..." and that statement becomes accurate.  Otherwise
 you have no right to speak for "the membership".  The Board does that.
Nice way to explain why nobody gives a shit why a couple great staff folks
quit.  *golf clap*

response 27 of 61:

Oct 6 22:57 UTC 2006

 I find nothing to disagree with in #24.  I think its relevance is limited
 (pertaining only to the fact that in #5 Dan wrote that "the membership"
 requested something rather than writing "a member" or "some members") but
 jep makes a good point.  There's no cause for sloppy writing or sloppy
 thinking.

response 29 of 61:

Oct 7 01:42 UTC 2006

I agree that jep has a point; I could have phrased that better.  But, the
readership (better?) requested that something be discussed at a board meeting,
and someone should have discussed it.

Further, the board doesn't speak for the membership: the membership speaks
for the membership, and the board listens.

That said, I agree that quibbling over semantics isn't going to solve any of
the problems with grex which, it is becoming apparant, run very deep.

response 31 of 61:

Oct 7 03:12 UTC 2006

Or maybe, "members of the readership" or "elements of the readership"

response 33 of 61:

Oct 7 04:02 UTC 2006

 re #28:
 > It only spins the conversation away from the Board's inaction
 > toward resolving a rogue staff.

 Can you be a little clearer who you're referring to?  I wouldn't
 use the term "rogue staff" to describe either of the two principal
 players (mic or steve) in the latest incident.

 Also, if you're going to be critical of "inaction", then what action
 is it that you want to see the board take?  Reduce their pay?  Put an
 official letter of reprimand in their Permanent Record?  Ground them
 for 48 hours and impose a curfew for the rest of the month?

response 35 of 61:

Oct 7 04:39 UTC 2006

The situation appears to me to have been resolved between steve and
spooked.  Mistakes were made aplenty.  That happens sometimes.  With
good will it is sometimes possible to work things out.  That has
happened, with some assistance from aruba and the couragement of the
Board.  I see no reason why I should be unsatisfied with what has been
done to work out the issue.

STeve has been part of Grex since the beginning.  He's trustworthy,
technically excellent, not as diligent as he used to be but geez it's
been 15 years and he's still here.  We're lucky to have him.  I think so
and I think almost everyone would agree.

Now, what should be done differently?  And why?

About the request that they "discuss" the steve/spooked/cross thing...
when has the Board *ever* acted hastily on anything?  I can't recall a
case.  They deliberate and discuss and take their time.  Usually by the
time they get around to doing anything, it's clear to everyone that it's
what they're going to do and most agree it's what they ought to do. 
They try to do what the membership wants and what will allow Grex to
survive.  I couldn't stand to be part of a Board that works that way
myself, but... well... I'm not *on* the Board.  It doesn't keep me from
recognizing the way that it operates, nor from noticing it's worked
pretty well for 15 years.

response 37 of 61:

Oct 7 04:55 UTC 2006

A technical committee and change control processes would be a good place to
start.  The garage cf has some good ideas simmering and if people don't know
how to get them implemented then a technical committee should embrace that
challenge and document the procedures everyone on staff can agree to.

response 39 of 61:

Oct 7 05:54 UTC 2006

THe board made a mistake by not discussing the question of when one staffer
should remove another staffer's privileges; it wasn't a premeditated mistake
- we just forgot to discuss it.  So I apologize for that.

response 41 of 61:

Oct 7 16:26 UTC 2006

re #40
That's why I'm suggesting a tech committee with change control
responsibilities because if something gets hung up due to someone on the
committee then it can be formally addressed in board meeting minutes rather
than buried somewhere in coop cf and garage cf like it currently is.

response 43 of 61:

Oct 10 11:03 UTC 2006

<aside>

Grex has a license to Picospan.  We can certainly use it.  What we don't
know is whether we can legally alter it.

</aside>

response 45 of 61:

Oct 10 21:41 UTC 2006

re #44
It was a work in progress.

response 47 of 61:

Oct 29 01:13 UTC 2006

I remember that Mike Myers and Marcus Watts had an agreement with NETI
that allowed them to continue to distribute Picospan after NETI went
under.  I suspect that that agreement was never formally terminated, but
presumably if they did sell a copy, then some payment would have to be
transfered to NETI, something which would at this point be impossible to
do, but probably would still have been possible in 1991.  Of course, no
payment was made so far as I know.  It's possible that Marcus got
approval to donate a copy from the same people who allowed Mike and him
to sell copies after NETI's demise.  I have no way of knowing.  I wasn't
associated with Grex in 1991.

If you really want to know if it's a problem, I suggest you contact the
former president of NETI.  Larry Brilliant is now running the Google
foundation, one of the bigger charitable institutions in the world, so
he is easy to find.  I think it's a pretty good bet that he'd tell us
not to worry about it.

response 49 of 61:

Oct 29 03:08 UTC 2006

NETI was a fat bottom girl that made the rockin world go round