|
Grex > Coop11 > #84: outgoing internet access for non-members | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 127 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 48 of 127:
| 
Mar 19 23:38 UTC 1999 |
The first line of the preamble to grex's bylaws states:
"IT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE AN OPEN-ACCESS
CONFERENCING SYSTEM"
To my way of thinking, "open-access" is access that is not denied without
good cause.
Grex should draft a user contract that all users who want full membership
would be required to sign and provide along with validation. This
contract would explain grex's goals, and what is considered unacceptable
and acceptable behaviour and use of grex. It would state that the user
agrees that grex staff has the right to restrict or rescind member
priviledges of any user who engages in unacceptable activity. It
would state that grex is financed by voluntary contributions and that the
user agrees to consider contributing and to accept future snail mail or
email solicitations to that effect.
Any user willing to sign that contract, and provide validation, should be
given full membership. Grex could do a mass snail mail once a year,
sending (not stamped but pre-addressed to grex) envelopes to all validated
users. This would cost a few bucks but grex could get a bulk postage ID
so it wouldnt end up being that much (might be sixty bucks to send a
couple hundred letters which could bring back hundreds of dollars).
This would move grex much closer to being truly open-access, and make it
closer to the communal experience it should be. No tiered access, no
qualifications for membership other than that you are willing to sign your
name and make a verbal committment.
|
prp
|
|
response 49 of 127:
|
Mar 20 00:12 UTC 1999 |
What are the official Grex attribute bits? Looks like:
1. Officer -- Obtained by being elected.
2. Staff -- Obtained by ?
3. Member -- Obtained by paying.
4. Verified -- Obtained by whatever.
That gives twelve possible combinations, given that officers have to be
members.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 50 of 127:
|
Mar 20 02:36 UTC 1999 |
re #44: I would be ever so happy to become a member, however, at this
time, I just can't afford it. Maybe once school's out for the year and
I don't have to pay for school lunch anymore ...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 127:
|
Mar 20 03:46 UTC 1999 |
Re #48: it is somewhat unusual for a member-based charitable non-profit
organization that is financed by contribution of dues to start asking
members to sign declarations, which cannot be enforced any more than
the current netiquette rules are enforced. Validation of members is
already done too. I don't think anything would be accomplished by
adding impediments to members contributing dues.
|
mdw
|
|
response 52 of 127:
|
Mar 20 09:04 UTC 1999 |
The difference between a vandal in india, colorado, or ontario is mostly
non-existant, they are all equally hard to deal with.
Do you people have *any* idea how many people would like to use grex to
be able to telnet into, then out of?
|
scott
|
|
response 53 of 127:
|
Mar 20 12:43 UTC 1999 |
Staff is appointed by Board.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 54 of 127:
|
Mar 20 16:20 UTC 1999 |
OK, is this something that the membership votes on? If so, let's get on to
a vote, and bury this issue "for good" (for awhile, of course). I'll be
voting NO.
|
pfv
|
|
response 55 of 127:
|
Mar 20 17:15 UTC 1999 |
I suspect not, marcus..
|
remmers
|
|
response 56 of 127:
|
Mar 21 17:32 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:48 - Grex already provides an "open-access conferencing system"
in the sense of the bylaws. The conferences are open to everyone
regardless of membership status, and everybody has the same access to
them via dialup and telnet. There is no "tiered access" to the
conferences.
I agree with Rane that no useful purpose would be served by making
people jump through additional hoops to become members.
Re resp:54 - If Joel elects to bring forward a final wording after the
required two week discussion period is over, then yes, the members will
vote on it. Can't start a vote yet because the two weeks isn't up.
|
keesan
|
|
response 57 of 127:
|
Mar 21 19:14 UTC 1999 |
Re #50 on school lunches. Is there some rule at your school that you are not
allowed to make and bring your own lunch? What do you pay per lunch? I would
be happy to help you plan a cheaper lunch.
Re the 30 minute limit on use of library computers. How many people who want
to ftp a file that takes more than 30 minutes, which presumably cannot be run
on an older computer, do not have the means to pay $6/month?
I cannot imagine anyone in the dial-in area not being able to afford $6/month,
other than someone with health problems (physical, mental, emotional, or
whatever, that keeps them from earning money). The few such people in this
category who cannot manage without ftp and telnet could be given a free
membership. Students in Ann Arbor should have no trouble finding $6/month
worth of work (shoveling snow, raking leaves, etc.). Anyone who cannot find
work, I will be happy to employ for $6/hour, once a month. Transportation
time not included. (My apartment could really use a good cleaning.)
I could even throw in a free vegetarian lunch.
|
devnull
|
|
response 58 of 127:
|
Mar 21 20:53 UTC 1999 |
Re #48: It's likely that if grex choose to carry out your proposal, I would
stop contributing. If I'm the only one who feels that way, though, you should
feel free to enter an item in coop, have the members vote on it, and next
september, I'll be happy to not renew my membership.
Re #52: Yes, I agree that a vandal who has succeeded in gaining the ability
to telnet through grex will be equally troublesome, whether in colorado
or india. However, the person in colorado may have more fear of the legal
system, making him less likely to be willing to tell us where we can find him.
I also agree that lots of people certainly would love to be able to telnet
through grex in order to be vandals. But I know of a system where there were
about 1200 authenticated users, who generally didn't cause problems. (The
relavent site also refused to disable the accounts of people who were alleged
to be vandals at other sites, on the theory that it wouldn't really help
anyway because the vandals didn't have to connect through this site.)
Re #54: Yes, I think a vote would be useful, just from the perspective of
figuring out what fraction of the member population feels which way.
|
mary
|
|
response 59 of 127:
|
Mar 21 21:20 UTC 1999 |
I too hope this goes to a vote.
|
aruba
|
|
response 60 of 127:
|
Mar 21 21:58 UTC 1999 |
Re #58: Actually, Richard can't put his proposal to a vote, because he isn't a
member.
|
devnull
|
|
response 61 of 127:
|
Mar 24 02:20 UTC 1999 |
Re #60: Well, he presumably could get a member to put his proposal forward
for him.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 127:
|
Mar 24 05:20 UTC 1999 |
I wouldn't bet on it.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 127:
|
Mar 25 23:14 UTC 1999 |
devnull, why would you drop your membership? IMO if you are buying
your membership strictly for the perks or for the **status**, this is for
the wrong reason. All my proposal would do is separate and distinguish
members and contributors. Contributors are patrons-- who should be
contributing because they **want** to and not to get perks or be granted a
more elite status than a regular user. My theory is that by lowering the
threshold for "membership" status to simple validation and agreeing to
abide by the rules, you cast a wider net for potential contributors down
the road. Let people become members and they will be more likely to
contribute than if you say they have to contribute to become members.
|
prp
|
|
response 64 of 127:
|
Mar 26 00:25 UTC 1999 |
Allowing non-payers to vote on spending seems extremely not wise.
Allowing them to vote on things like defaults might be OK, but
you would have to come up with some way to prevent ballot box stuffing.
As for outgoing Internet for non-payers, at least on a try it and see
how much load it generates basis, I support the idea. In fact I'm
holding off joining in hopes of being the first to use it. Well that
and the household repair budget July has been spent. ...
Remember that current proposal still requires validation, which will
eliminate the vandals and those seeking anonymity for other illegal
aims.
I think this leaves only one reason against the proposal: fund raising.
And here you can argue the effect either way.
I do think the number of solisations one sees when learning about
Grex exceeds the point of diminishing returns. Although Aruba and
others have my sympathy.
|
aruba
|
|
response 65 of 127:
|
Mar 26 02:42 UTC 1999 |
I was curious to see just how often richard uses the word "should" in coop,
so I wrote a little awk program to count it. I was sure that richard would
come out first when i checked for uses of "should" per word entered. I wasn't
being quite fair to him, however - actually he ranks 8th. here are the top
20:
User Resps Lines Words Shlds Shoulds/Word
-------- ----- -------- ---------- ----- ------------
pthomas 2 6 35 1 0.0286
gregb 2 8 63 1 0.0159
mic 5 12 71 1 0.0141
silver69 2 8 80 1 0.0125
omni 2 9 87 1 0.0115
clees 3 50 467 5 0.0107
mcnally 11 102 838 8 0.0095
richard 54 504 4391 27 0.0061
dpc 110 503 3965 23 0.0058
srw 45 447 4090 21 0.0051
jiffer 15 70 603 3 0.0050
arthurp 12 66 605 3 0.0050
prp 10 65 405 2 0.0049
robh 30 121 837 4 0.0048
atticus 6 28 213 1 0.0047
spiff 9 132 1332 6 0.0045
senna 25 150 1405 6 0.0043
mwg 4 52 461 2 0.0043
jazz 7 69 517 2 0.0039
jep 64 641 5627 20 0.0036
The full list may be found in ~aruba/shoulds.
|
scg
|
|
response 66 of 127:
|
Mar 26 04:37 UTC 1999 |
I'm curious about why Richard is criticizing somebody else for saying he would
drop his membership if Richard's proposal passes, while Richard has been
refusing for years to become a member. Then again, I probably shouldn't spend
my time wondering about such things.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 67 of 127:
|
Mar 26 05:15 UTC 1999 |
That's an interesting game, Mark. Now, try it on "curious".
|
aruba
|
|
response 68 of 127:
|
Mar 26 15:24 UTC 1999 |
There are many fewer "curiouses" than "shoulds". Here is everyone who has
said "curious" in this edition of coop:
Login Resps Lines Words Curs Curiouses/Words
-------- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---------------
hematite 1 3 29 1 0.03448
fungster 4 11 69 1 0.01449
albaugh 26 116 1049 1 0.00095
jshafer 17 148 1236 1 0.00081
joey819 1 228 1773 1 0.00056
valerie 95 768 7111 2 0.00028
devnull 89 828 7485 2 0.00027
cmcgee 88 582 5261 1 0.00019
mta 104 873 6910 1 0.00014
aruba 302 3278 26480 2 0.00008
scg 138 1269 13165 1 0.00008
remmers 209 1740 13436 1 0.00007
rcurl 306 2151 19103 1 0.00005
steve 356 3632 31213 1 0.00003
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 127:
|
Mar 26 16:13 UTC 1999 |
(I asked not just because Mark had just used "curious", but because
my students at UM almost always began technical questions with
"I'm curious if (why/what/how/etc)....", rather than just asking the
question.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 70 of 127:
|
Mar 26 19:57 UTC 1999 |
Darn, my curiosity isn't statistically significant.
|
keesan
|
|
response 71 of 127:
|
Mar 26 22:53 UTC 1999 |
If I understood correctly, richard may not have the highest frequency of
shoulds per word, but he did have the highest absolute number. Your chart
is interesting in revealing the wordiest people (aruba is up near the top,
at least from the portion of that chart I can still see; this might be
something to do with his lengthy treasurer's reports). What period of time
were these charts for, and for which conferences?
This is a fun game, thanks Mark.
|
aruba
|
|
response 72 of 127:
|
Mar 26 23:47 UTC 1999 |
THe numbers I gave were for the current coop conference (coop11). Richard
doesn't have the most total shoulds, you have to look at the full list in
~aruba/shoulds to see that actually it's I who have the most total shoulds.
Fancy that. I thought I was avoiding the word.
|