|
Grex > Coop13 > #376: The problems with Grex, e-mail and spam | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 480 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 352 of 480:
| 
Dec 15 23:49 UTC 2006 |
I would love to do that but I am not entirely sure how to go about it.
|
tod
|
|
response 353 of 480:
|
Dec 16 00:20 UTC 2006 |
I sorta like the ol conferencing call technique. If you can find someone
willing to donate their conference call trunk so you can have an "all hands"
staff meeting with board members via teleconference then you'd be golden so
long as its productive and re-occurring.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 354 of 480:
|
Dec 16 00:28 UTC 2006 |
> I'm not sure of the best way to reach them though. Maybe email? Or
> attend the next board meeting?
There in lies the problem. Not all of the current staffers are reachable
or even monitor the Grex community. Could you imagine if Grex's finances
were managed by a lolly-gaggle of treasurers who each were able to write
checks and process payments among which none were "in charge" and all
decisions were made through "consensus" or "democratically"? We'd be in
financial turmoil just as we are in technical turmoil. Instead we have
Aruba who is in charge of finances and as a result Grex is fiscally
strong and very well organized (kudos to Aruba who doesn't get thanked
enough for the work he does).
> I would love to do that but I am not entirely sure how to go about it.
Put one person in charge of staff. Make her or him an officer in the
company and clearly define what the authority and responsibility of the
position requires. If it were me putting it together, I would say that
this person has the authority to add or remove people from staff (with
knowledge of the root password requiring BoD approval), approve all
changes, and make security decisions when necessary. This person would
also be required to submit staff reports to the BoD before each meeting.
These reports could be submitted through e-mail, or better yet made
public on coop similar to aruba's.
Such a person wouldn't even need to be technically savy or even located
in Ann Arbor. He/she would simply need to have plenty of personal time
to devote to keeping things organized.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 355 of 480:
|
Dec 16 00:32 UTC 2006 |
> I sorta like the ol conferencing call technique.
Actually, I like the idea of using VoIP. Perhaps Grex could put together
a voice conference system using some OSS. Heck, I'd even suggest using
teamspeak because it would be simple to set up and the clients are
available for Mac, Windows and Linux.
|
tod
|
|
response 356 of 480:
|
Dec 16 01:41 UTC 2006 |
re #355
You might like VoIP but I doubt everyone on staff is as enthused about setting
something like that up just so they can "touch base".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 357 of 480:
|
Dec 16 02:41 UTC 2006 |
Kip, Cross and I were added to staff at the same time. McNally was added
just before, or at the same time, Glenda was added. Glenda is the most recent
addition.
If we have a Lord High SysAdmin, I expect most everything to be left to that
poor sod to do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 358 of 480:
|
Dec 16 06:40 UTC 2006 |
It is not unusual for the chief executive officer of an organization to be
"in charge" of staff. That's "staff" generically, of course. But there
would be some point to assign this duty to the Grex president/chairperson.
His/her only duty assigned in the bylaws is calling BOD meetings and
organizing the agenda: that's hardly "executive" responsibility.
(Incidentally, there is no provision in the bylaws for choosing the
president, treasurer and secretary, not even stating that the BOD does
this. In fact, as far as the bylaws go, the members have as much right to
choose the officers as does the BOD itself - it is a *member* based
organization.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 359 of 480:
|
Dec 16 14:22 UTC 2006 |
That is a possibility also Rane. The chief of staff (*grin*) could be a
BoD member or even the president of the board. Or he/she could be a
non-board member, or even elected by the membership. Or the current
staffers could themselves elect a chief and rotate the position around.
I would recommend that this person not be part of the BoD however
because he/she should be responsible to the BoD, adding a layer of
oversight.
> If we have a Lord High SysAdmin, I expect most everything to be left to
> that poor sod to do.
It would be a time consuming job, no doubt.
|
mary
|
|
response 360 of 480:
|
Dec 16 14:25 UTC 2006 |
Are we having fun yet?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 361 of 480:
|
Dec 16 15:06 UTC 2006 |
I think there might be a way to structure the job so that it was primarily
a peer relationship instead of a hierarchical relationship. The included task
would have the person help each staff member (or teams of staff members) find
resources, track progress, and identify when a project was getting bogged
down. Staff would need to shift thinking a little bit as well.
When the person pointed out that it had been X weeks since the staff member
had had time to move the project forward, the staff involved would have to
practice saying Yes, I need some help, rather than defending the downtime with
the shield of personal priorities above this task.
The person could help find and integrate new staff, acting as a mentor, and
keeping an eye on progress.
All staff would have to relinquish total ownership of any particular piece
of Grex. But there is no reason that staff wouldn't be able to choose a
domain of expertise, and become the initial go-to-person with problems in that
area. The difference is that the process observer saw no progress, the staff
person would have to be willing to let someone else step up and begin working
on the problem as well.
This might require more frequent "meetings" of staff, but I don't think so.
The "cat-herder" might have to initiate conversations, and be willing to spend
time keeping a thread going.
I nominate Remmers as our first cat-herder.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 362 of 480:
|
Dec 16 20:14 UTC 2006 |
I don't think of it as either a "peer" or "hierarchical" function, but rather
as a coordinating function, to keep the members of the orchestra in tune.
|
maus
|
|
response 363 of 480:
|
Dec 17 21:24 UTC 2006 |
resp:315
This may not be a good idea, but would it be reasonable to simply name a
new group, have newuser drop new folk into that group and then define
either a login.conf or systrace policy to bar network access, instead of
using pf for it? This would allow someone to gain access by simply
doing:
sudo usermod -g "nice_users" new_user1
|
gelinas
|
|
response 364 of 480:
|
Dec 18 02:33 UTC 2006 |
Basically, that's how pf works. I've created the new group, set newuser to
use it, and defined a pf rule for the old group. The only thing left, I
think, is an easy way for the volunteers, solicited elsewhere, to do the user
modification.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 365 of 480:
|
Dec 18 13:20 UTC 2006 |
Actually one line of unix is manageable. But, to lower the fear factor, a
tiny script, where you responded to the question "Which user ID should get
outgoing mail access?"
with a comma separated list of user ids, and an "is this the correct list"
confirmation question would be nice.
|
cross
|
|
response 366 of 480:
|
Dec 20 23:59 UTC 2006 |
Regrding #329; I'm guessing it probably depends on the tape changer.
Regarding #331; Modern relative to a Sun4m machine running SunOS 4.1.4....
That is certainly true.
As far as PAM goes, maus has it right in #333. We have login.conf, but we
still need custom code to support the custom hashing algorithm.
Regrading #340; I'm going off my recollection here, but I seem to recall
reading things like that in the staff mailing list. It's been a while;
my memory might be flawed.
Regarding #360; Beats me. Are you? Perhaps you should calm down. :-)
Regarding #361; I think that getting staff to relinquish ownership is going
to be one of the harder things to do.... Part of the problem, as I see it,
is that too many people view grex as a hobby versus something important to
maintain. There's too much personal investment and too little community
ownership. How does one go about changing that?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 367 of 480:
|
Dec 21 03:21 UTC 2006 |
I think you're right. A long time ago I tried to interest Grex into seeking
to serve the local non-profit community. There was no particular interest.
|
cross
|
|
response 368 of 480:
|
Dec 21 04:05 UTC 2006 |
I suppose HVCN would be thought of as the place for such things, but it is
distressing that grex isn't more active in things like that.
|
ric
|
|
response 369 of 480:
|
Dec 21 14:17 UTC 2006 |
Grexers - and M-Netters - are only really interested in one goal. Keeping
Grex (or M-Net) up and running.
The charitable mission is a joke.
|
cross
|
|
response 370 of 480:
|
Dec 21 14:24 UTC 2006 |
Wow. That's a pretty hardcore statement.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 371 of 480:
|
Dec 21 15:19 UTC 2006 |
cross, send me an email at this login if you would please. I have a couple
questions for you I'd like to clarify.
|
cross
|
|
response 372 of 480:
|
Dec 21 15:50 UTC 2006 |
Sure thing.
|
remmers
|
|
response 373 of 480:
|
Dec 21 16:23 UTC 2006 |
Re #367: It was the manner of service that was the problem. We didn't
want closed conferences.
|
jep
|
|
response 374 of 480:
|
Dec 21 16:46 UTC 2006 |
It is definitely true that Arbornet's charitable mission was interesting
to only a few, from the time of the merger on forward. Almost everyone
involved wanted only to keep M-Net up and running. A number of vocal
posters were pretty hostile to the idea of doing anything beyond that.
I don't think there were more than a dozen people who ever did anything
which was not exclusively for M-Net from the time of the merger.
M-Net was tied to the Arbornet charter, which had provisions for
community forums and an educational mission. No one at all was ever
interested in those sorts of things, not since M-Net came along, anyway.
Arbornet was founded with a big budget at first, I guess as a potential
tax write-off for NETI.
When Grex became a 501(c)(3) organization, Jan chartered it as doing
exactly what it was already doing. That was simple, straightforward,
and clever enough I didn't think it would actually work, but it did.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 375 of 480:
|
Dec 21 17:57 UTC 2006 |
re #373:
> We didn't want closed conferences.
Except for staff, right?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 376 of 480:
|
Dec 21 18:00 UTC 2006 |
Good point, Mike.
|