|
Grex > Coop9 > #7: Members with more than one vote |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 60 of 186:
| 
Nov 4 18:08 UTC 1996 |
So what's your point? How does it relate to the question of whether Grex
should allow members to have multiple votes? How does it relate to any
specific issues under discussion here? We know what Grex's purpose is. We
practically invented the idea, about 14 years ago, long before there were any
"freenets". Why are you telling us things we know better than anyone on the
planet?
|
remmers
|
|
response 61 of 186:
|
Nov 4 18:14 UTC 1996 |
(Just an aside here: Richard, with his wild chains of logic based
on incorrect suppositions and misfacts, leading to suggestions that
are blatently inapproriate, impractical, etc., long ago convinced me
that he has little of value to contribute to this conference. Numerous
people pointing this out has resulted in no change in behavior, but
rather heated denials from Richard that these characterizations are
accurate. So a long time ago I decided that it is pointless to argue
with or criticise him. Nowadays I mostly just skim his text and limit
my responses to short corrections when I notice factual errors.
Folks who are bothered by his behavior might take comfort in the fact
that he has had virtually zero success in obtaining support for any of
his positions from anyone -- board, staff, members, users, you name it.
Although it would be disastrous to adopt his ideas, there is no chance
that this will happen, and therefore he is not dangerous. I classify
him as an eccentric with an irritating manner but no power, and
therefore harmless. I'd suggest to participants in this conference
that the next time they are tempted to put time and energy into
responding to Richard, they ask themselves whether that time and
energy might not be channeled more productively in some other
direction.)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 62 of 186:
|
Nov 4 18:25 UTC 1996 |
14 years ago? I thought grex was five years old. And it relates to the
questionof whether grex should allow multiple member votes, because that
question is directlyr elated to whether one sees grex as a privateclub or
a type of free net. If it is, as you agree, a type of free net, itshould
bne doing everythingpossible to be as public a groupe as possible and to
get as many people involved as possible. So it should want as many people
voting as possible. It should welcome the opportunity for other people,
whether or not they can contribute moonetarily to get involved.
One can contribute to PBS under fifteen differentnames if one wants to./
It is the involvement that counts. So Inot only think that this multiple
voting question is silly, I think that anyone who wants to contribute
wshould be allowed to because this (grex) should be sonsidered "owned by
the public" If there werent all kindds of legal reasons, maybe Cyberspace
Communications Inc. wouldnt even have needed to be formed. Grex should be
considered owned by its users, any user who wants to participate (even
unverifiedones like Selena). That is what would/should make it a true
"free net" Anything else is a bastardizationof the concept.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 63 of 186:
|
Nov 4 18:31 UTC 1996 |
Remmers, Im justa user who contributes his opinions. If you are not
accepting of others views, you are the one who is unfit to be in this
conference. I have never ridiculed John Remmers or Jan Wolter or
anyone else and they've had their share of bad ideas too. There is
something called civivility and respect. Ifyou dont like my ideas, fine,
say so, but dont make this personal and try to ridicule my intentions. I
like and support grex and am trying mybest in the way I can to
participate. I'd like John Remmers to apologize. set drift=off.
|
ajax
|
|
response 64 of 186:
|
Nov 4 20:25 UTC 1996 |
I just entered a kerouac item, item 137, to further discuss this topic.
It includes responses 61 & 63, if people want to reply to either of those.
|
srw
|
|
response 65 of 186:
|
Nov 4 21:14 UTC 1996 |
Good. then we can go back to addressing the question (or problem, if it
is one) that we permit people to buy as many memberships as they want,
and to control the votes of all those memberships as if they were
different individuals.
Mary Remmers said she thinks we should trust our users not to do such a
thing. I do trust those people I know, but I don't think it is
appropriate for us to have a policy of being so trusting, and I am
worried about what the state law has to say on the question. (I really
don't know what it says on this.)
|
dang
|
|
response 66 of 186:
|
Nov 4 23:03 UTC 1996 |
That raises an interesting point. Does State law require us to only have one
vote per person or not? It seems to me that if it does, that should end the
discussion right then and there. However, if it does not, then the question
is still open.
|
scg
|
|
response 67 of 186:
|
Nov 5 01:55 UTC 1996 |
re 62:
Grex grew out of M-Net, which was started 14 years ago.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 68 of 186:
|
Nov 5 16:52 UTC 1996 |
But as I understand it, M-net was started by one person out of his home.
I dont see how Janc can claim credit for inventing it or even conceiving
the idea. Plus which I know of two similar boards that (one of which no
longer exsists) date back to at least 1981.
|
ajax
|
|
response 69 of 186:
|
Nov 5 17:19 UTC 1996 |
They were probably not free public-access Unix systems. I'd be
curious to hear more about them if they were.
|
janc
|
|
response 70 of 186:
|
Nov 5 18:09 UTC 1996 |
It's a side issue, but M-Net was started by Mike Myers and Marcus Watts. I
was involved early as a staff member and a major donor. Probably my major
contribution to early M-Net was in starting the idea solicitying user donations
to fund faster growth of the system. Prior to that it was funded out of Mike's
pocket. At some point M-Net split into two systems, and the Grex founders took
some new steps (no private ownership, no tiered access) that were reactions to
what went before. I consider it a continuous history. You can consider it
what you like.
|
mdw
|
|
response 71 of 186:
|
Nov 5 19:12 UTC 1996 |
When I first encountered the term "freenet", I do specifically recall
that there was little emphasis or understanding of the value of "local
content". I remember being specifically interested in that, because
that's obviously one of the things that makes grex (& m-net) special.
The two points where freenets seemed to be expected to provide any local
"content" were in terms of e-mail (for verified users), & local usenet
groups. This was before the invention of the web, of course, so
obviously things have changed.
The "freeport" software may have been "real cheap" at first, but I
believe they eventually hiked the price up to hundreds of $'s a year.
Obviously, it's still not in the same price league as Adobe Illustrator,
but it's still an entrance barrier for a small startup.
We can't stop people from calling grex a "freenet", but we can and
should discourage it, at least as long as "freenet" is a registered
service mark. Perhaps NPTN is bankrupt, but I don't think we want to
pay for the court battle with whoever purchases that asset, to "prove"
the word has become generic.
I vaguelly recall some sort of "north coast Unix system" (cleveland?)
back in the early 80's. As I recall, it started around or just after
m-net, and ran on some sort of TRS model 16.
|
krj
|
|
response 72 of 186:
|
Nov 5 19:59 UTC 1996 |
kerouac in #68: janc did not say that "he" was responsible for the
public access aspects of M-net; he said that "we" were. Most of the
Grex founders and early active users had been active participants and
leaders on M-net's social laboratory for years. And it was the users who
shaped M-net, not the owners; founder Mike Myers wrote an essay
at one point which expressed his dissatisfaction at how it had all
turned out. So yes, janc and remmers and popcorn and others are
part of that history and tradition going all the way back to the
early 1980s.
This might be part of the reason folks get cranky when kerouac
starts talking about how Grex will fail if... or If we want Grex
to be a success... kerouac seems to think that Grex was organized
last year and that Grex's concepts are new ones;
while in truth, Grex's roots go back to a very early
period, almost to the beginning of social computer communications.
In the computer field, anything which has survived for so many
years is a success already. :)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 73 of 186:
|
Nov 5 21:15 UTC 1996 |
A success yes, but only on the basis of what was previously
accepted as the computing environment. When GRex went on the 'net
it became a new entity, it changed definition. It was more
thanletting more people access it, being on the 'net changed its
role. The question is whether Grex is surviving on the 'net
Whether it works on the 'net or whether it is slowlybut surely drowning.
I would argue that whether it worked in the past is no guide to whether it
can work in the future, Unix boards themselves are virtual dinosaurs.
Jan and Steve Weiss are helping to save Grex by giving it anew interface
to conference through the Web. The telnet setup with Picospan just wasnt
meant to handle so many users.
The software is outdated and eventually egven the considerable coding
talents of marcus and STeve wont be able to preserve GREx.
Grex has to change and it cant change if the past is held uonto so
stubbornly that nothing new is considered. The bylaws were written for a
different system than we have today. The software was as well. So I
reject the notion that past experience, even b eing around at the origins,
is any barometer for expertise on what is needed today.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 74 of 186:
|
Nov 6 08:11 UTC 1996 |
(Could folks take the "origins of Grex" and Richard's theory that Grex is
dying to some other item? This is the "members with more than one vote"
item.)
Back when Grex was founded, founders discussed anonymous memberships and the
fact that one person could buy several memberships and vote several times if
anonymous memberships were allowed. At the time, the concensus was that if
anybody wanted to spend the money to become a member of Grex several times
over, they were welcome to do so. In the end, Grex would benefit, since it
would receive extra income.
In an early co-op conference I believe I entered an item expressing concern
that someone could buy lots of memberships and theoretically could take over
Grex by buying an election. People told me that I was being overly concerned
about a non-problem.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 75 of 186:
|
Nov 6 12:57 UTC 1996 |
Is it a problem now? Are we starting to think of members
as folks who are out to abuse the system and we should
protect Grex from the membership?
I'd really rather we *focus* on an atmosphere of trust.
Once we let it be known how things work the members
should be encouraged to take care of their system.
I know this is radical and different from the real
world. Think of Grex as different.
|
dang
|
|
response 76 of 186:
|
Nov 6 15:14 UTC 1996 |
I still don't think this is a problem. I also don't really think it will be
a problem. If all of a sudden 50 memberships are bought witht eh same id,
someone will notice, and it will come up. Then it will be dealt with.
However, as I said, I don't think it will happen.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 186:
|
Nov 6 17:31 UTC 1996 |
I haven't looked it up, but the initial premise of members and voting is
one member - one vote. However an organization may define members and their
privileges with wide latitude, and may have many categories of membership,
with or without votes, and presumably with multple votes, by defining them
in the bylaws. We have only one category of members and don't define voting
privileges, so the "common law" applies. We must also have identities on our
members, so the same id can't have multiple votes. The gray area is members
under the influence of other members, such as children. I don't think this
is a serious enough problem to take any action on, but if it were, one
could just set an age limit on voting.
|
remmers
|
|
response 78 of 186:
|
Nov 6 17:46 UTC 1996 |
There's no way to avoid the possibility of members influencing
other members unless you don't allow members to talk to each
other.
|
srw
|
|
response 79 of 186:
|
Nov 6 18:11 UTC 1996 |
I agree on the influencing issue. And propose we do nothing about it.
Ithe fact remains that there *is* a person on grex with two memberships.
Should we take his/her word for it that one of the memberships is an
organization? Even if we do, should we permit this person to control 1.16
votes on grex, while I only control 1?
If we answer yes, I am thinking about buying some votes. Grex could use the
money, and i can afford it. (personally I find this repugnant, but I want to
make a point about our policy. I think it is a critically important point,
and not one we can trust people about. I will prove that if necessary.)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 80 of 186:
|
Nov 6 21:41 UTC 1996 |
Let me see if I got this right, Steve. Grex supports the idea of one vote
per person no matter how many memberships that person is involved with or
how much that person donates to Grex. We admit someone could abuse the
system but would rather let the policy stand alone and trust our users to
do the right thing. Why?
Firstly, because it's very much in the spirit of how we see the members
taking care of their system. Secondly, it would be difficult at best to
prove who anyone is who wanted to abuse the system. Our present system of
identification is inadequate to prevent voter fraud. We'd need recent
picture ID on every member, and even then you wouldn't really know who is
tele-voting now, would you. So how do we lock it down tight so nobody can
vote twice? I know, only those members who can vote face-to-face, with
ID, can do the deed.
So, how many fake voting accounts you gonna take out in this little
display of temper, Steve?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 186:
|
Nov 7 06:51 UTC 1996 |
I see no inherent problem in an organization becoming a member - the more
members, the more support. I also don't *personally* have a problem with
an organization voting (it is usual in all the organizations I belong to
that accept "institutional" members).The theoretical objection appears to be
that the organization's vote might be cast by a member (though I also never
see that happening, it could I admit). I'd live with it, for the sake of
good institutional relations, but I'd make sure thatthe policy is that that
institutional vote must be cast in a regular meeting of that organization.
|
srw
|
|
response 82 of 186:
|
Nov 8 05:16 UTC 1996 |
Actually, Rane, I really don't have a problem with an
organization voting, but I am not sure where to draw the line.
Should we require the org to be incorporated? If not, what about
an org. with two people on the board, both of whom are already
members?
I think that Grex should be more friendly to organizations than
it currently is. I don't believe we permit organizational
memberships at all. Hence, if one is desired, it gets taken out
in the persona of a board member. That is the case with at least
one account which is authenticated with the ID of someone who
already votes under another ID.
This caused our treasurer to point out to me privately that we do
NOT have a policy that prevents a person from paying for more
than one voting membership. In fact, we have such a person on our
rolls. Well I certainly believed that it was our policy, and had
said so publicly many times. Now I am hearing that we really
don't have or need this policy.
I think if we officially recognized one of the accounts as being
an organixational membership, and if we did restrict individuals
(and organizations) to no more than one vote, then the current
situation would not require fixing, but our one-person one-vote
principle would be our policy, as I think it should.
Display of temper? Well I was only trying to point out what I
could do. Can you trust the next person not to do that? I
remember when Valerie posted her worries that the votes could be
bought up. I thought she was worrying too much at the time,
because I felt we had adequate protection by requiring separate
IDs for wach vote bought. Without a policy that enforces that, I
am getting worried now myself. Why should I be so trusting?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 83 of 186:
|
Nov 8 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Oh! Now I understand why that discussion went the way it did. I should go
dig it up again, to see if that point was ever discussed. If people were
using different unwritten assumptions, it explains a lot.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 84 of 186:
|
Nov 8 17:22 UTC 1996 |
I think I might be getting what srw is asking for, also. It is my
understanding that it is indeed an unwritten policy already that no matter
how many memberships a person is involved with only one vote per person is
allowed. Maybe this needs to be more than unwritten and better
publicized. What I would object to would be an attempt to back-up such a
policy with additional rules regarding identification, verification,
punishment for those who don't attend to the policy, etc. That would be
useless and set a distrustful tone.
|