response 56 of 120:

Jun 20 16:40 UTC 2003

I'm inclined to vote in favor of this proposal simply because of the phrase
"expressly permitted and encouraged."  I noted Jan's comments on why he
didn't want to exercise his abilities and think his reasons valid for him.
That they are valid for him does not excuse the reluctance of the rest
of the staff.  It seems obvious that staff does need encouragement
(of both kinds: appreciation of a job well done, and solicitation of
continued efforts).

I hope that this referendum will help provide some of that encouragement.

response 58 of 120:

Jun 20 20:08 UTC 2003

Can you help me out by explaining to me what it is about this proposal, 
other than that it represents to you cultural change by fiat (a point 
which I would argue), that you so strongly oppose?

response 60 of 120:

Jun 21 02:01 UTC 2003

The proposal seems completely redundant to me.  I too had been assuming it
would be dropped after Remmers pointed out the previous policy.

I think the staff culture is somewhat disfunctional, but I can't see how any
staff person's behavior would be changed by this policy.  We are nearly all
programmers - by instinct very logical thinkers.  We know that X /\ X = X,
without even having to look it up in the manual.  Redundant input is flushed
from our buffers very fast.

response 62 of 120:

Jun 21 05:35 UTC 2003

Case in point.

response 64 of 120:

Jun 21 18:30 UTC 2003

I am voting no on the proposal because it is redundant. In any case, the
proper procedure would have been to move to amend or replace the existing
policy statement, in order not to have *nearly but not quite identical*
policy statements on the books.

In addition, it would be desirable to address the fundamental flaw - there
is no system or procedure to keep policy alive in people's minds. At the
least there should be some regular staff communication process, even if
not regular ftf meetings.

response 66 of 120:

Jun 21 19:12 UTC 2003

If it passes, the new proposal will replace the existing one, won't it?

I don't think it's proper to use a referendum to clarify an existing 
policy.  I think that's the job of the Board.  The users give a 
direction, but the Board handles how it's implemented.  If the staff's 
discretion to appoint non-root staff members is not being applied 
appropriately, the Board should correct it.

I voted "yes", but did so because I didn't want to send the message 
that the staff shouldn't be taking appropriate action such as 
appointing assistants.

I was caught by surprise when I saw this was being voted on.  If I'd 
thought there was any chance of that, I'd have objected to the vague 
phrasing and inappropriateness of a referendum before now.

Whether it passes or fails, nothing will have been accomplished.  
There's no question of direction here.  Everyone appears to agree on 
what would be good.  The referendum isn't resolving anything.

response 68 of 120:

Jun 22 17:44 UTC 2003

Re #66: no, a new policy does not replace an old policy unless the motion
specifies that it should. It is just carelessness that has led to this
motion being proposed when a somewhat similar one is on the books.

Re #65: what I would suggest is having an item along the lines of a public
"To Do"  list for staff, much like the classified conference. Suggestions
can be hashed out in other items and if found desirable they are added to
the "To Do" item by staff, and addressed as time and opportunity provide,
and frozen or killed when done. I am not suggesting in this a particular
procedure for placing things on the To Do list - only creating the list so
good ideas do not get forgotten too quickly. 

response 70 of 120:

Jun 22 23:56 UTC 2003

I'm not currently a member, but as a former staff member, I hope the
membership votes no on this.

I'll note that a vote of no doesn't indicate disagreement with the sentiment
of the policy.  It doesn't say there shouldn't be new staff members.  It only
says that this particular proposal shouldn't become policy.

I do see this as making a rather significant change to the way staff has
always claimed to operate, even if staff doesn't operate that way in practice.
This proposal encourages individual staff members to appoint other low level
staffers, without coordination with the rest of the staff.  The practice
several years ago, when the staff seemed to work pretty well, was for this
level of staffers to be appointed after discussion among the whole staff. 
Under the new proposal, if all staff members except one were adamantly opposed
to adding somebody to a non-root staff position, the one who supported the
addition could go ahead and make the appointment.

response 72 of 120:

Jun 23 14:20 UTC 2003

I'm going to abstain on this because I think it's basically a NOP.  If
it passes, it duplicates existing policy, so nothing changes either way.

response 74 of 120:

Jun 23 14:44 UTC 2003

Even after reading your explanation, Eric, the distinction is not clear 
to me.  And the distinction will not be clear to anyone in 3 years if 
this passes, a discussion comes up about it, and you are not there to 
personally explain it.

response 76 of 120:

Jun 23 16:31 UTC 2003

Is the staff conference not used for this communication?  I would imagine,
perhaps incorrectly, that the staff conference is where this communication
would normally take place.  Perhaps a policy making participation in that
conference a little more structured or dare I say even mandatory on a regular
basis?

response 78 of 120:

Jun 23 18:28 UTC 2003

If there are communications problems between the staff members, the 
answers for Grex users are either to facilitate better communications, 
or to improve the staff.  The users are crucially involved; it's their 
system, not just the staff's.  At least that's the theory.  In 
practice, an argument could be made that, when it comes down to it, 
it's STeve and Marcus's system, and very few others count at all.  But 
that's a side issue.

It's hard to criticize Eric for attempting to rectify the problem, when 
it's been a problem for years and no one else is doing anything about 
it at all.  Give him credit for that.  He's the president of Grex, and 
certainly is tackling a worthy problem.

It's hard to criticize him for choosing the solution he has picked; 
really a compromise between the two available choices.  There's really 
no way to mandate improved communication from the outside.  All of the 
staff know how to communicate.  They either do it or they don't.  
Unfortunately, they don't.  The other alternative is dismaying to 
contemplate.  The staff is insular to an extreme degree, but very 
competent and benevolent.  Who wants to replace them?  Not me.  Not 
Eric.

Eric's solution seems to me to be an attempt to get the staff to act, 
or get others who will act, without letting things just bog down.  
Good, I'm for that.  I trust all of the staff.  I trust them to appoint 
proxies.

All of that aside, I still don't see how this proposal gains anything 
for Grex, since -- aside from a little cheering-on to use the power 
they've got -- it doesn't change anything that I can see.

response 80 of 120:

Jun 23 18:42 UTC 2003

(Eric was president of Grex last year - Mary is president this year.)