|
Grex > Coop11 > #115: Did the Board overstep its authority? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 73 responses total. |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 50 of 73:
|
Aug 7 13:26 UTC 1999 |
Maybe I should try one more time, then.
It seems to me the Board is trying to pinpoint this situation into a
very tiny area. Important enough to act on, but not important enough to
notify people.
The impending disaster was urgent enough that the Board needed to make a
decision, right away, even though it hadn't been considered very well.
Such a decision implies a certain priority. The Board didn't decide to
shut down the system in case lightning struck, or the Iraqis
successfully invaded the United States and conquered Michigan, because
those things are too unlikely to be considered. The possibilities are
not important. However, it did act in case this particular law went
into effect. That implies the Board thought it was urgent enough, and
likely enough, to take action.
However, the impending disaster wasn't likely enough to merit a mention
in the MOTD, or the system announcements item. It wasn't important
enough that any mention was made for 2 days after the Board meeting, and
the only mention made was in the minutes of the Board meeting.
So the Board is stating there's some room, a threshhold above which
there is need for emergency Board action, and below which the users
don't need to be notified.
I am stating there is no such gap. Anything so urgent the Board needs
to consider it and act on it immediately is also urgent enough the users
have to be immediately and meaningfully notified. The users have the
right to make their own decisions about these things, and to have as
much time as possible to make their own arrangements, regardless of the
convenience for Grex's staff.
The Board does have the authority to order a shutdown of Grex. I think
that's obvious. But I don't think it has the authority not to tell
people it's going to do so, or that it has decided to do so under X
conditions.
Does that make sense at all?
|
steve
|
|
response 51 of 73:
|
Aug 7 16:32 UTC 1999 |
OK, John, that was well worded and I think I get you, now.
Our point of contention now, is that gap, as you called it. The way
I see it--and I think some other board members would agree with this--
was that our decision to consider the temporary shutdown was mostly
something "just in case", for completeness sake, but that is was a
remote enough possibility that we didn't want to cause a panic by
posting it in the MOTD right away.
There were several people who came forward in mail who wanted their
accounts deleted, because of our announcement in the MOTD about the
law and what we were doing about it. I got several tels from worried
people, who wanted to bail out, then.
It is fair to say that most people who use Grex haven't a clue as
to how the system is run. Many users aren't quite sure where we are,
and many have told me that they marvel at how a system like Grex exists
at all, and wonder how often the government inspects us (and I've even
had that question from people right here in America) and lets us go on.
There are simply a lot of people who don't understand much about Grex,
don't (or are scared) to go into the conferences, and just don't see
the big picture of what Grex is, as a whole.
An announcement in the MOTD about how we'd be shutting down if this
law came into effect would have had some VERY severe consequences for
us. The Grex folks who are in the conferences or use party wouldn't
have been so freaked out, as by and large they understand things here
better than those who aren't "in the loop".
If you haven't been on the staff mailing list or have gotten thousands
of requests from people (and yes, I do mean that litterally: I received
AT LEAST three requests for help via talk/tel/write every day), it's
hard understanding the level of non-understanding out there.
Now, having that message in the MOTD would have caused a LOT of
problems. If even a small number of people got it into their heads
that creating a .forward file would have been the right thing to do,
Grex would have started bogging down under the increased mail traffic.
If even 10% of out users had thought about FTPing their files off Grex
we'd have been clogged that way. If a small percentage of our users
sent mail asking about this, staff would be hopelessly swamped with
requests.
I am quite sure that this would have happened. Being in the position
of dealing with people who don't understand much of how Grex does things
I have no doubts about this, at all.
Grex is a *big* system. Given the continued demise of freenet systems,
Grex will soon be, if its isn't already, the single biggest open access
system in the world. Certainly there haven't been many new additions to
the open access marketplace--the only new one I've heard of died before
it was born, when its creators in the UK realized they didn't have the
resources to make a go of it.
Given the negative consequences of posting such a warning in the MOTD
coupled with the *small* chance that we wern't going to get PA 33 stopped,
it was clear, VERY clear to me that it wasn't worth it.
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 73:
|
Aug 7 19:38 UTC 1999 |
Okay, then, we've narrowed it down to the need to have an immediate
emergency action, never previously considered by anyone, just to fill a
"we don't really need it anyway" gap.
This is incongruous. If it wasn't needed, it wasn't needed as soon as
someone brought it up at a Board meeting. If it was, then other people
needed the chance to act on the situation as seen by the Grex board.
If this wasn't a mishandling for the reasons I stated, then it does
create distrust. In that case, I wonder: are there any actions
undertaken by the Board which have been blotted from the minutes so as
not to create a panic? Two weeks ago I would have laughed at the very
possibility of this happening on Grex. Now, though, the entire Board is
arguing that this was a perfectly reasonable way to handle the
PA 33 situation.
I don't believe that the Board does things that way, but even one
incidence of "we won't tell people for their own (our our own) good"
leads to this kind of speculation. It damaged Grex's credibility. Was
it worth that?
|