response 79 of 120:

Jun 23 18:37 UTC 2003

Maybe there should be a proposal that makes it mandatory for the staff 
to communicate, either via email, or to read the staff cf. On more 
than one occassion, we've come across posts saying something like "I 
don't read the cfs anymore, please email me". That's understanding, 
people get busy. However, when this lack of communication is proving a 
hinderance to the way things work, maybe this needs to be rectified. 
janc has pointed out that there used to be regular staff meetings, 
that petered off as there was less to do. 

Though it does seem like a waste of time to have a meeting when there 
is nothing to discuss, it does help keep the flow going for times when 
there is something that needs to be hashed out. Hey, if you think 
there is no reason to have a meeting some month, send out 
communication that says so. The general idea is for staff to expect a 
meeting unless otherwise communicated. 

I have't really given much thought to Eric's proposal, but the 
sentiment seems to be right.

response 81 of 120:

Jun 23 19:02 UTC 2003

What the staff could probably use would be an administrative manager.  
They can do the technical stuff, and do it fabulously.

It would seem helpful for them to have someone to facilitate meetings, 
encourage communication, keep lists of stuff that ought to be done but 
isn't, figure out what tasks aren't going to get done and find someone 
else to do them, and keep the dang users from getting in their way when 
they are working on something.  It ought to be someone they like and 
respect and can work with pretty well.

Actually, I think Eric would be a good choice, if he has the time for a 
position like that.  Or someone else from the Board.

This is not a user proposal, and is not going to be.  I shouldn't have 
any say in it, other than to suggest it.  Neither should any of the 
users, other than to be told things will be handled differently, and 
how, if something like this is implemented.

response 83 of 120:

Jun 23 20:18 UTC 2003

None assumed.

response 85 of 120:

Jun 23 21:28 UTC 2003

What was the outcome of the discussion in item 187?  I believe in some face
to face conversations I had during the past two board meetings that there was
the possibility of a staff meeting to discuss those candidates for new staff
or at the very least an online discussion.  

Did that take place?  If not, could I suggest that someone at least drop some
email about it?

response 87 of 120:

Jun 23 23:10 UTC 2003

This evening, eh?  Wonder how far down my throat I've managed to stick my
foot.  Hmmmm.

Well, I'm going to remove my vote and wait to see what the outcome of the
staff meeting is.  This should be interesting.

response 89 of 120:

Jun 24 03:23 UTC 2003

Allow me to put on my consultant hat for a minute.

It is correct to say that giving staff members the root password shows a lot
of trust in the individual staff members.  It means that any one of those
staff members, in a moment of sleep deprivation, could destroy the entire
system, and that we trust them enough to know their limits and not do that.
This situation is not unique to Grex, but applies to any organization that
gives people the unrestricted access needed to deal with unexpected
emergencies or make big systems changes.

That doesn't mean that staff members should act alone or without discussion
on making changes, either of a technical or managerial nature.  While many
staff functions are routine, follow set procedures, and can safely be done
over and over again without much planning other than was needed the first
time, big system changes should not be treated the same way.  Planning things
carefully, and getting somebody else to review the plans, is not an indication
that somebody doesn't know what they're doing.  On the contrary, it's a
recognition that even good talented people don't always catch everything.

As somebody who at this point is mostly an outsider on Grex, I can see that
discussions on changing operating systems go on for years.  Other changes on
Grex have been discussed less (I remember being with a bunch of staff members,
perhaps even at a staff meeting, when we telnetted into Grex and discovered
the implementation of the telnet queue, which came as a big surprise), but
in my professional capacity I see that sort of "cowboyism" causing a lot more
problems than it solves.

If the current staff isn't doing much communication, I don't think anybody
can order them to.  They're volunteers.  But given how much coordination is
required, in terms of making sure things get taken care of and making sure
projects (or staff appointments) don't crash into eachother, I don't think
that encouraging even less communication makes a whole lot of sense.

response 91 of 120:

Jun 25 04:08 UTC 2003

I do think that if Grex had paid employees, the solution to staff
miscommunication would be to hire a good manager.  However, such is not
compatible with the generally anarchic culture that the staff has maintained
since the dawn of Grex.  So something would have to give if we went that
route.

response 93 of 120:

Jun 25 21:36 UTC 2003

Sorry I can't make it; the commutes a little far.  :-)

response 95 of 120:

Jun 26 04:05 UTC 2003

I'm seeing a lot of dissatisfaction with the way things are working 
now.  No one but Eric seems to believe his proposal would change 
anything, and I don't think anyone believes it will pass.  So, there's 
going to be no policy change at present which will affect the number 
of staff members.

Several people have said that some more staffers would help a lot, but 
the mechanism to add them has existed for years.  A couple have been 
added, right?  Only a couple, and those only recently.  Why expect 
anything to change?  "Insanity is doing the same thing again while 
expecting different results."

I didn't mean my suggestion in resp:81 to mean a boss of the staff, 
but maybe more of an administrative assistant.  I think there's a lot 
of stuff that ought to be done which doesn't require the technical 
wizardry of Marcus, and which wouldn't interest him, but which still 
perhaps ought to be done.  Keeping track of all the projects which 
ought to be done, that would be one possible contribution.

re resp:91: The system does not belong solely to the staff, at least 
in principle.  Many people have every right and every reason to be 
concerned about Grex.  The staff's anarchy appears to be a problem for 
everyone but the staff itself.

It's just an idea.  I'm not necessarily convinced it's how things 
should be, either.  I do think it's different than anything anyone 
else has mentioned, and I think it has some advantages which ought to 
be considered, as well as some disadvantages which have been mentioned.

response 97 of 120:

Jun 26 18:03 UTC 2003

I think the big issue right now is that the current staff composition dates
to six or seven years ago.  A lot of us who were appointed to staff then were
excited about doing staff stuff for Grex, and had lots of time to do so.  A
lot changes in six or seven years.  Several of us have completely wandered
away from our staff functions.  Those who are still making an effort to be
Grex staff have a lot going on in their lives that they didn't then.

It sounds like things are on the right track now in terms of recruiting new
people, but even that, of course, takes energy from volunteers.  I'm hopeful
that once there are a few energetic new people on board, there may some more
energy to devote to getting normal staff processes rolling again, including
recruiting more new people as needed.

response 99 of 120:

Jun 30 18:09 UTC 2003

"The polls are open through the end of the day (EDT) on Saturday, July 1."

That's why I got confused. ;)

response 101 of 120:

Jul 2 04:17 UTC 2003

I've counted the votes.  It's close enough that I want to wait
for the treasurer to certify the eligible voter list before
announcing the outcome.  I have the list from him as of
yesteday, but he's not available for a few days, and it's
conceivable that a check or two arrived in today's mail
that would change the list of people whose votes should be
counted.

response 103 of 120:

Jul 2 14:10 UTC 2003

68 votes were cast.  Roughly 40% of those were member votes,
according to the latest available list of members.

I won't report the breakdown of yes/no votes at this time,
since a change in that after Mark certifies the final voter
list would compromise ballot secrecy.