Grex Coop9 Conference

Item 55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences

Entered by mary on Wed Feb 12 14:10:59 1997:

84 new of 367 responses total.


#284 of 367 by cmcgee on Wed Mar 12 16:13:29 1997:

Thank you Paul!

I too changed my vote from no to yes. 
If Mary's proposal fails, and we cannot find a workable compromise, then
nothing on Grex will be available to unregistered people. 

If Mary's proposal passes, and none of the compromises have majority
support, we will still have this policy in place. 

It is not clear to me that any compromise is going to get majority
support, and since I really prefer that we allow unregistered reading, I
want this option available.  




#285 of 367 by mary on Wed Mar 12 23:05:33 1997:

I grew up in a family that tended to disagree with enthusiasm.
No problem here.  I hope you feel better soon, Paul.


#286 of 367 by jenna on Thu Mar 13 03:26:45 1997:

I still hope Mary's propoal fail. I'm a fan of free choice and it doesn't
allow that.


#287 of 367 by remmers on Thu Mar 13 05:20:41 1997:

Results are as follows: 40 voting members in good standing cast
ballots.
                Yes     21
                No      19

In addition, 72 non-members voted. The results here (which don't
count towards determining the outcome) are

                Yes     40
                No      32



#288 of 367 by robh on Thu Mar 13 08:38:02 1997:

Fair enough.  I'll have my resignation ready in the afternoon.


#289 of 367 by ladymoon on Thu Mar 13 12:23:38 1997:

I hope you, cmcgee, and you valerie are happy! Hads you two not switched your
votes, this thing would be DEAD.


#290 of 367 by ryan1 on Thu Mar 13 15:09:11 1997:

I think it is an unfair double standard that the Staff conference can remain
closed to unregistered reaading, however every single
other conference must be open.


#291 of 367 by babozita on Thu Mar 13 15:52:12 1997:

*smiles at Ryan* I was advised by one staffer that I was being discussed in
the Staff conference about a year ago. That statement was confirmed, in very
roundabout ways, by two other staffers and outrightly denied by yet two other
staffers. So I heartily agree with you, and have said so before. I'm told 90%
of the staff conference is so boring that it would be torture for anyone else
to HAVE to read it, though. =}


#292 of 367 by robh on Thu Mar 13 16:28:01 1997:

Re 289 - To be technical, *one* switched vote would have defeated
this motion, since "majority" means "more than half", not "half or
more".  Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.  >8)


#293 of 367 by richard on Thu Mar 13 16:45:49 1997:



#294 of 367 by richard on Thu Mar 13 16:59:27 1997:

AndValerie saves the day!  I felt sure that if she hadnt changedher vote
back, this would have been a tie.  I predicted this outcome om the nail:

#106 of 293: by Richard J. Wallner (richard) on Sun, Feb 23, 1997 (18:15):
 Mary, Peter, Jeff, John, SCG, and SRW all voted against the previous
proposal
 but will vote yes for Mary's.  Basede on the previous vote of 16 to 24,
if
 noone else changes their mind, the vote would be 21 yes 19 no.  
The  votes are there.


Grex politics arent that hard to figureout :)   I hope Jan and/or SRW can
turn unregistered reading on today.  May as well try it out for a while
before voting on thenext proposals.   So we'llhaveperspective.  Flip the
switch!  


#295 of 367 by robh on Thu Mar 13 17:15:19 1997:

"Flip the switch", what an appropriate phrase for it.  >8)


#296 of 367 by babozita on Thu Mar 13 18:29:47 1997:

siwtch, bird, they're both nouns


#297 of 367 by cmcgee on Thu Mar 13 18:35:37 1997:

I would hope, that before "flipping the switch", that the designers of
Backtalk wait for the outcome of the currently-in-process compromise.  I see
no benefit in offending people unnecessarily by hasty implementation of
something that might last only 15-20 days.


#298 of 367 by rcurl on Thu Mar 13 18:49:06 1997:

Uh....is that a motion?  I see no harm in having it on, even if only to
have a couple of weeks of experience with it. It is not hasty to implement
a policy when the policy is adopted. Besides, any chance to gain
experience, rather than just all the theory we have had, is worthwhile. 



#299 of 367 by dpc on Thu Mar 13 21:53:30 1997:

I must point out that the vote switches occurred during the improperly-
extended period of voting, confirmed by the switchers.  If the vote
had ended when it should have, the motion would have been defeated.
        Unbelievable!   


#300 of 367 by ryan1 on Thu Mar 13 22:09:44 1997:

I declare a mis-vote!


#301 of 367 by richard on Thu Mar 13 22:14:05 1997:

You cant prove who voted when...or how many voters voted yesterday or the day
before.  Just because Valerie changed her vote on the last day doesnt mean that
other people didnt vote on the last day as well.  I dont see the problem, since
all extending the time period did was give more people time to vote.  In any
case this was brought up and there was no objection.  End of story.


#302 of 367 by cmcgee on Thu Mar 13 22:36:04 1997:

David, if you will read response 30, posted on February 15th, you will see
that my vote changed  well withing the proper voting period.  


#303 of 367 by cmcgee on Thu Mar 13 22:56:35 1997:

[Actually, it was my mind that changed.  The proposal wasn't even being voted
on at that point]


#304 of 367 by dpc on Fri Mar 14 01:56:17 1997:

I'm only talking about confirmed late vote-switchers, Colleen.


#305 of 367 by jenna on Fri Mar 14 02:49:22 1997:

will this be implemented before the other motion is voted on?
*is trying to decide when to leave*


#306 of 367 by richard on Fri Mar 14 03:04:24 1997:

#305...yes, there was no period of delay stipulated and staff is obligated
to carry out member or board ordered directives with due diligence3.


#307 of 367 by mary on Fri Mar 14 03:32:30 1997:

I would certainly hope this policy would be implemented without 
delay.  Then as we go into the next vote we'll have a better
feeling for how it goes.  I'm looking forward to any fine-tuning
of this issue to be based more on fact than fear. 

Janc and srw, when do you plan to make the switch?


#308 of 367 by srw on Fri Mar 14 05:22:38 1997:

This policy will probably not be implemented without delay. This policy 
does not require immediate deployment.

Everything requires a delay. I am in favor of doing this but I am too 
friggin busy to get to it for a while. If someone else wants to make the 
changes, I will not object.

Also I think it is only fair to allow plenty of time for people to 
remove what they don't want to be seen, although I think that the whole 
idea of hiding what one has typed into Grex is very silly.

Also I want to say that Kerouac is just plain wrong about me. I voted 
for the compromise. I repudiated resp:106, and yet he still quotes it in 
resp:294. I voted *FOR* the compromise.


#309 of 367 by srw on Fri Mar 14 05:26:49 1997:

I also think it is totally inappropriate to hang the vote on one 
person's back. You don't really know how anyone voted, nor when nor if 
they changed their vote. You only know what the claimed. The vote is 
officially a secret ballot.


#310 of 367 by mary on Fri Mar 14 11:15:31 1997:

My "without delay" was not at all meant that as a demand
on your time, Steve.  It was aimed at the idea that this
action should be delayed until further votes have come
and gone.  Experience will help in the decision of what,
if anything, should be done to fine-tune this policy.

If you and janc are too busy to see to it then you are
to busy to see to it and we'll need to be patient.


#311 of 367 by jenna on Fri Mar 14 21:12:47 1997:

I would appreciate some time. It would be curteous. Prove to me you're no
incapable of even that. I'm beginning to wonder.


#312 of 367 by mary on Sat Mar 15 00:58:06 1997:

I don't know where I got the impression, maybe from something
janc entered, that this was simple perm on/off thing in the
software.  But it looks like it maybe isn't, Jenna, so there
will be some transition time.


#313 of 367 by srw on Sat Mar 15 03:21:22 1997:

It shouldn't be especially complicated to implement this policy, as we don't
have to note which conferences have special properties. I was feeling
particularly harried when I read your post Mary. I would like to give
preparation time for those people who want to remove selective items in
advance of this, out of respect for their wishes.

I am torn on the question of waiting for another vote. It would seem proper
to implement the policy which was approved by the members without delay, as
I am sure you will argue, but others may have a legitimate claim that if we
were to pass by membership vote in a very short time a compromise, then it
would be less disruptive to the Grex community not to implement a policy for
a short period which would cause pain to some, only to revise it shortly
thereafter. 

Besides, I am not sure how many different policies I want to implement. I am
leaning toward allowing the consensus building process come to rest first
before going off and implementing anything at all. I am undecided and wish
input and guidance on this.


#314 of 367 by rcurl on Sat Mar 15 05:11:49 1997:

This would not all happen this way in a FTF (under RRO). I therefore
support letting all these related motions play out before taking any
action. (Under RRO, the chair could just rule this, if there was a chair....
(it is kinda fun trying to function in a chaotic system, though)).)


#315 of 367 by mary on Sat Mar 15 05:15:55 1997:

Steve, you say, "I am sure you will argue..." but I'm not going to
argue.  So there. ;-)

Really, whatever folks decide to do here is fine by me.  You 
want to delay implementing this until all the votes are a done
deal, no problem.  

This issue has taken on a life of its own.  It maybe be something of a
novelty for this to happen on Grex but I've seen it many a time on M-net. 
Over the years I've watched in total amazement how folks can get so
completely immersed, dominated, and emotionally devastated by the politics
of a bbs.  Grex is getting big enough now that we have collected a cadre
of folks susceptible to this behavior.  Enough to feed the action and make
it a good show.  Progress, of a kind. 

But maybe it's what I'm exposed to all day long that keeps me from feeling
too much empathy for this crisis.  You want to feel crushed?  Find out
your cancer is inoperative.  You want to feel helpless?  Watch a loved one
clinging to life while your heart-felt wish is they would mercifully die.
Feel left out of the decision making?  Deal with a teenager out of
control.  Feel you've "lost your home?"  Be without a place to sleep at
night. There are issues worthy of the kind of angst we've seen here.
Unregistered reading of a bbs's conferences ain't it.

I'm hoping some leadership steps up to the podium and helps get us through
this (exaggerated) issue.  You won't please everyone but you will be
helping all involved.


#316 of 367 by mary on Sat Mar 15 05:16:58 1997:

Rane slipped in.


#317 of 367 by senna on Sat Mar 15 08:52:27 1997:

I have two questions:  Why?  No reason to do it, really.. people for the most
part won't really care, I dont' think it will noticeably increase volume. 
Most people on grex don't even care about confs.  Why not?  anon people can
read grex confs all they want.. jsut telnet itn, get yourself a login, and
read.  It's not private.  it's public.  I don't really care.


#318 of 367 by mary on Sat Mar 15 19:54:41 1997:

I think you're showing a good grasp of the (non-) issues here,
senna.  Congratulations.


#319 of 367 by aruba on Sat Mar 15 21:14:11 1997:

Re #315:  Well said, Mary, and I too don't think the issue is worth getting
worked up about.  But everything is relative, and if Grex politics is really
important to someone, well then they'll feel strongly about it.  But really,
people, let's keep some perspective.


#320 of 367 by srw on Sat Mar 15 21:50:28 1997:

I'm glad that this won't be yet another contentious debate. I did not mean
to put words in your mouth, Mary. I apologize.

Like I said, I haven't really decided what to do. I am pleased that we can put
anonymous reading up, but I am mostly tempted to wait a while, like until
cmcgee's propoosition is voted on. I won't want to delay indefinitely, though.


#321 of 367 by valerie on Sun Mar 16 04:44:08 1997:

This response has been erased.



#322 of 367 by jenna on Mon Mar 17 05:49:32 1997:

maybe anonymous is never what bothered people
about id-less reading. i bet THAT never occured to anyone.

i think it would be a good idea to wait. curteous, etc.

Mary> I think your post about M-net sums up my current feelings about
Grex. Spiraling doward towards M-Net. Thank you. I could have said
it myself, but not so eloquently, factually.


#323 of 367 by mary on Sun Mar 23 00:02:25 1997:

I think there needs to be a plan on where we are going with this issue. 
I'd suggest that the policy which was voted on (this item) be put into
effect as soon as either Jan or Steve can make the necessary changes to
Backtalk. 

Jan, what was the estimate you gave today on how soon you could have this
done?

Meanwhile, I'd suggest the Board do one of two things.  The Board could
decide to make Jan's unreadable-to-the-unregistered utility available as
as soon as the program is written.  Or, if there is a strong feeling this
utility needs to be voted on by the membership, then someone who feels
that way needs to propose such a vote. 

This issue needs to be resolved.



#324 of 367 by janc on Sun Apr 6 02:34:58 1997:

I expect that I'll once again have a little free time in the next few weeks.
I can turn on anonymous reading by, say, next weekend.  It was voted for, and
we should do it.

The filters might take more time.


#325 of 367 by mary on Sun Apr 6 13:04:31 1997:

I can't imagine what's been keeping you busy. ;-)

Thanks, Jan.


#326 of 367 by aruba on Sat Apr 19 18:52:18 1997:

I feel obliged to mention that in the last couple of weeks there have been
3 people who told me specifically that they were not renewing their Grex
memberships specifically because this proposal passed.  (robh is not one of
them, by the way, in case you were wondering.)  I guess that's to be expected
with an issue as devisive as this one turned out to be.  We're at 97 members
right now.


#327 of 367 by aruba on Sat Apr 19 18:54:23 1997:

I said that a little more "specifically" than I had intended.  :)


#328 of 367 by mary on Sat Apr 19 20:57:29 1997:

I expect there will be a few more who won't continue to
support Grex financially in protest of this decision.

That's to be expected.  Some folks find it easier to
support a club than a wide-open community access system.


#329 of 367 by nako on Sun Apr 20 01:53:49 1997:

I will be the first person to admit that I am among the three that Mark
mentions as not renewing as a result of this motion.  I hadn't planned on
saying anything; however, I do take offense to the tone that Mary uses in
her response.  It is this that compels me to write.

The vote passing was not the absolute reason for my decision - rather, it
was the seven to ten minutes I waited on several occasions this week to
have my pine inbox opened.  It was as a result of the numerous times
that I've waited over an hour to dial-in, attack dialing the whole time. 
To be honest, I just don't feel that grex is currently a stable enough
system for me to use right now - and I just can't support a system that I 
have difficulty using, let alone even accessing.  I know that
steps are being taken to increase bandwidth and so on, and that's fine.
But I just thought it was absolutely ludicrous that people were even
suggesting adding to Grex's load before the bandwidth increase was finally
approved.  The vote was not my absolute reason for my decision - but more
the proverbial piece of straw that broke the camel's back.

I never had a problem with the concept of unregistered reading - and I
still don't.  It's consistent with what Grex wants to be - an open
community to all.  I don't think that Grex should be a limited club, as
Mary implies that the opposition felt.  (That alone shows how much
some people cared about my concerns during the voting process.)  I just
can no longer support a system that cannot find what I
feel to be a responsible way to support itself, or its supporters.



#330 of 367 by mary on Sun Apr 20 03:31:20 1997:

And some folks find it easier to support a system that actually
supplies a reasonable level of speed and dependability. ;-)

I'm sorry you won't be continuing to donate, Michael.  Really.
Grex needs a little bit from a lot of folks if it is going
to be able to continue to keep dues low and find a wide
base of support.


#331 of 367 by tsty on Sun Apr 20 06:46:32 1997:

get the little bit before drowning the support base then, as my broken
record plays again .... and *not* without audience it seems.


#332 of 367 by e4808mc on Sun Apr 20 15:21:18 1997:

nako, the pine problem was random, some accounts experienced it and some
didn't.  Ask Valerie for technical details, but "finger bombing" was the word
she used to explain it to me.  

AS far as finding a responsible way to support itself, or its supporters, I
think Grex is doing the best it can, and needs continued support from those
of us who believe in its principles of open access.  The unregistered reading
will not affect how busy the dial-in lines are, and those of us who use
dial-ins are a *major* expense to the system, what with phone lines, and
modems and so on.  If you want to see a less busy access with dial ins, pledge
to pay the phone bill for one line for one year!  


#333 of 367 by tsty on Sun Apr 20 18:03:44 1997:

delay in starting/opening any process is in no way a function of busy
or not-busy dialins. it is much closer to the total accumulation of
used ports regardless of the connection method. 
  
and, naturally, the accumulation of total processses with regard to
the system resources demanded per process - total system load.


#334 of 367 by rcurl on Sun Apr 20 20:29:41 1997:

Re #329: nako's decision to not support the system because it isn't fast
enough for him - contributes to the system not being fast enough for him.
Only with support can the system speed and reliability be increased. 


#335 of 367 by pfv on Sun Apr 20 22:04:33 1997:

        Untrue..
        It also depends on the NUMBER of ports opened, what can be run,
        and whom.

        contributes? yeah, sorry - not symptomatic, though



#336 of 367 by scott on Sun Apr 20 22:45:25 1997:

Since the unregistered reading will be (as presently planned) over the Web,
modem or pty availability is not an issue.  System load is, though.


#337 of 367 by jenna on Mon Apr 21 00:56:58 1997:

I'd cancel my membership, but I didn't pay for it. You could send the
anonymous donor their money back, though... then again, that might be rough.
Oh well. I think pissing the people you DO have off isn't going to
get you ONE iota more money, or a NICER system.
I think it's going to get your a SHITTY reputation on other BBS's
and by word of mouth. I CERTAINLY don't refer people here anymore.


#338 of 367 by rcurl on Mon Apr 21 05:25:51 1997:

I just cannot understand that. The most "grexian" thing to do is increase
access. As far as membership goes - it sounds like you make it depend on
whether you win or lose a vote.  That's not my basis for joining a good
cause. I find all the grumbling hollow. I still refer people here, as it
is the most unique institution on the internet. Nothing has been done to give
Grex a poor reputation. On the contrary, this should increase its good
reputation. 


#339 of 367 by nako on Mon Apr 21 05:41:18 1997:

Aha - criticism for making a personal decision.  Something that I would
have never expected from a community as open-minded as this one purports
itself to be.  (For the humor-impared:  yes, that was sarcasm.)

#332 - If pine's problems were old news, as you had put it - it's the
first I'd ever heard of it.  I've talked about the problems I've had with
pine for the past couple of months in my responses to this issue - it's
rather unfortunate that it came until now before anyone said anything my
way about it.

#332, #333, #335, #336 - I acknowledge that the number of dial-ins and
system load are related indirectly, at best.  I merely used it as an
example of *my* dissatisfaction with Grex.  It all ties in to the problem
I have with Grex being more concerned with attracting new users than it is
trying to be able to provide a system stable enough to support the new
users.

#334 - Rane, I guess you didn't understand what I've been saying for the
past several months.  I'm choosing not to renew, because I don't like the
fact that the considerations of adding to system load were made before
any positive changes were made to the impact upon that system load.  It
doesn't matter if my $6 would make the system that much better in the
future - because I don't feel my $6 is making a difference right now.

At this point, I don't feel that my $6 per month is contributing to the
system in a way which I feel would be beneficial to the system as a whole.
And I don't think that waiting ten minutes just to read my mail, while
the rest of grex makes plans to open it up even more, is beneficial to
*me* right now.  


#340 of 367 by nako on Mon Apr 21 06:06:05 1997:

Rane wrote:

> I just cannot understand that. The most "grexian" thing to do is
> increase access.

I won't argue this - I never have argued this.  But everything has its
price, as does this measure.  Increased access to the conference will
either cost money (in upgrading the system to meet the demand) or time
wasted (in waiting to actually access the features of that system).

You seem to be in favor of increased access at all costs - without
considering the costs that may be incurred, or the opinions and feelings
of those who may be opposed to it.

> As far as membership goes - it sounds like you make it depend on
> whether you win or lose a vote.  That's not my basis for joining a good
> cause. 

If people feel so strongly about this cause that they're willing to leave 
in protest, Rane - let them do it.  Don't try and tell people that their
feelings or opinions don't matter.



#341 of 367 by tsty on Mon Apr 21 08:45:39 1997:

the IC hasn;'t said much, yet


#342 of 367 by cmcgee on Mon Apr 21 15:58:00 1997:

Some of us are willing to live with the slowness of Grex, some aren't.  If
a member of a community decides to leave that community, people shouldn't
criticise his/her decision as rane did.  Wish him well, tell him he's welcome
back if he ever wants to rejoin us, and then get on with the community.  

There is no need to discuss/argue about whether his feelings about Grex are
right or wrong, logical or illogical.  The scientific fact is:  That is how
he feels.  We are a voluntary organization, and when people don't want to
belong any more, they can quit.  No debate.  


#343 of 367 by remmers on Mon Apr 21 16:35:23 1997:

Oh gack, now we're arguing about arguing.

Michael stated his views on certain issues, Rane stated his.
They disagree. I view this kind of open airing of differences
to be healthy.

Telling people to shut up because "it's wrong to criticize" I
find to be not so healthy.


#344 of 367 by remmers on Mon Apr 21 16:35:58 1997:

(Not that I'm telling anybody to shut up, of course.  :)


#345 of 367 by scg on Mon Apr 21 16:52:37 1997:

I hesitate to say this, because money is still something Grex needs, but money
is not what is keeping us slow right now.  What is keeping Grex slow, to the
point where it might be fair to say that Grex's infrastructure is crumbling,
is a lack of staff time.  We have plenty of new modems that aren't being used,
phone lines that aren't being used, an expensive new computer that is not yet
being used.  Most of staff is too busy to deal with very much Grex stuff (me
included), and those who are doing a lot of Grex stuff are very busy with the
day to day issus of keeping the system going.  This is a serious problem. 
I'm not sure what the solution is.


#346 of 367 by rcurl on Mon Apr 21 19:54:46 1997:

I have not criticized anyone's personal decisions, but solely said I
disagreed, and stated my perspective. How is that criticism? Are people
going to start referring to the two sides of an issue as *criticism*? So,
they think democracy is founded in criticism? That's is an incorrect
concept. 



#347 of 367 by mdw on Tue Apr 22 03:16:32 1997:

"Lack of staff time" is *much* too simplistic a description of why grex
is slow.  Sure, with *enough* staff, we could make grex faster, but it
all depends...

Firstly, one of the major constraints on the speed of grex is the speed
of the internet link.  Improving that is not black magic, all it takes
is cash.  Lots of it.  If we translate this into terms of staff, then
what we are talking about is getting loads of volunteer grex "staff",
then re-hiring them out as slave labour to mop floors, wait on people,
and &etc.  Hmm...  It might not have to be lots.  I think even one or
two full-time slaves at minimum wage would do it...

Another constraint is the speed of the CPU.  We have a new faster CPU,
so yup, all it takes is staff time.  But not just *any* old staff time -
it needs to be somebody who knows something about vme hardware, sunos
system administration, and somebody who is really trustworthy.  *That*
is not nearly so common as might be supposed.

It is also a fallacy to suppose that because something has fallen behind
schedule because of lack of human resources, that adding more people
will necessarily make it happen faster.  In fact, it is much more common
to find that adding people to a late project makes it even more late.
Adding people tends to add at least exponentially to communications
problems, and since communcations problems are often one of the reasons
projects are late, the consequences are obvious.  Now, it would be a
mistake to think that grex staff are crippled because of a lack of an
ability to communicate.  But I would say that we grex staff have *not*
done well in terms of communicating ideals and practical information to
new grex staff.  In any event, this is something I think all of us grex
staff are coming to realize, and it is very likely that there will be
material improvement here.

Money, on the other hand, is something grex staff *can't* do anything
about.  Also, money *can* save staff time.  A significant improvement in
link speed *will* cost money.  Adding more dialin lines will also almost
certainly cost money.  Things that are needed there include:
 a working terminal server
 33k modems for all of the current & any new lines, with
        dumb mode straps
both of these are *definitely* available, IF you have the bucks.
Currently, staff time has been sucked up by trying to make a donated
free terminal server work (it's never been reliable) and by problems
created by 19.2k modems that lack dumb mode straps.  Money is *also*
needed *JUST* to keep grex operating at its current level.


#348 of 367 by jenna on Thu Apr 24 23:36:39 1997:

rane, then you don't understand.
"Grexian" is obvioulsy an ideal I no longer belong to
if it involves violating my personal space. I never
claimed to be "Grexian" I am merely a person who has been here
and wihes to stay here if at all possible
(I'm still aiting, giving this all the chance to straighten out)
I don't give a FLYING fuck what YOUR picture of the GREXIAN
IDEAL says *I* should do. I care about how I feel and
what I think,a dn you're PLENTY smart enough to understand THAT.
 Grex's mission, IMHO, should NOT be to provide the most
access at the cost of providing a community in which the users feel
safe or ok with it. WHO cares if grex is accessible from every anle
if NObody wants to be here anymore! WHO REALLY cares about a
ghosttown? --walks out shrugging, having work to do--


#349 of 367 by rcurl on Fri Apr 25 03:45:23 1997:

There is absolutely nothing in the founding documents or any discussion
I heard here when I joined in 1993, about "personal space". Apparently
you found some in the incidental ways Grex has been run. But it was founded
to provide maximum access to anyone under the sun, and that is all that is
being done. There are technical limits on what can be handled, but "personal
space" was never a consideration, except for the freedom to be an
anonymous user. Many users are right now. That is a simple answer to
creating one's private "personal space". 

I think the only people that will walk out are those that have a problem
dealing with a public forum.

Incidentally, there is no evidence whatever that anything will change for
current users with unregistered web reading. I don't think there will be
any noticeable change, or any problems we haven't already had. I know a
good way to find out, though.


#350 of 367 by nako on Fri Apr 25 05:30:17 1997:

In #349, Rane wrote:

> I think the only people that will walk out are those that have a problem
> dealing with a public forum.

I give up - it's become apparent that Rane doesn't understand what I've
been saying for *months* now.  I'll say it again - in case it'll do some
good:

I no longer choose to support Grex because I don't think that the
suggestion of unregistered reading is appropriate at this time, given the
current quality of Grex's operation.  Period.

You've repeatedly ignored the numerous times I've said that I don't have a
problem with unregistered reading - because you continue to group me into
a contrary position.  If Grex had been running smoother two months ago,
I'd have voted yes.  If anything had been done to make Grex run better,
I'd have renewed my membership.  Nothing has changed here - and as such, I
feel my money is being wasted.

And Rane says he's not criticizing anyone?  Yeah, and wild bears don't do
their duty in the woods, either.

> Incidentally, there is no evidence whatever that anything will change
> for current users with unregistered web reading. I don't think there will be
> any noticeable change, or any problems we haven't already had. I know a
> good way to find out, though.

This is one of the flimsiest arguments I've heard regarding this issue.
There's no evidence to support or refute *either* of our positions -
because nothing has been tried yet!  How can you refute my arguments with
evidence that doesn't exist?

My arguments are based upon the notion that Grex, given no changes, is too
slow of a system *right now* to reliably handle the load that unregistered
reading will place upon it.

Oh wait - I forgot.  Rane is *so adamant* about unregistered reading at
all costs, he doesn't seem to care about the consequences - who decides to
leave for what reason, or now, apparently, on how slow the system gets as
a result.

What's the point of having more people accessing a system that
proportionally fewer people will be successfully able to access?


#351 of 367 by jenna on Fri Apr 25 23:10:01 1997:

forget about it rane. there's such a thing as a community, but I imagine
someone like yo woldn't understand. --OK... NO more ad hominums and falimng.
Nako, Rane, Jenna, shuttup! I mean it! This is ridiculous. We KNOW
we don't understand each other. I understand Rane's position, but not his
intolerance; Nako understnds the issue most people are having and
has a seperate but related problem; Rane doesn't understand me or Nako (or
maybe is accidentally lumping Nako in with others) So lets forgetit.
Flame wars for mail, please.


#352 of 367 by tsty on Sat Apr 26 11:54:08 1997:

btw, here is some edited email i received during the last regular
election cycle ... editing to preserve anonymity, i might add.
  ----clip
  
All I can say is, Grex isn't
close to what it was when I  first  logged  on,  in  94.  It  has
changed  in  many  ways  that I dislike, and the best way, I have
found, to show a disappreciation of  something  is  to  pull  out
one's  support of it.         
  
[clip]

hoping that maybe I could somehow help get grex back closer
to  where it had come from. [clip]
 
[clip] Fairly certain that the ones with a  voice
at grex didn't want to head the way I had in mind, I did the best
I could do- I left Grex to its' own devices. If they were  right,
I figured that Grex would prosper fine without my support, and if
they were wrong.. well, they couldn't say I hadn;t tried to steer
them  away  from it.          
  
I wish you well, TS. With any luck,
you won't have happen to you, what happened to me.  

[clip] <<of a hard, by-name slam>>
  
Perhaps it is cruel of me to enjoy that last
part,  but  you  know, I cannot apologize for it. It just went to
show that while Grex didn't want my ideas, they didn't  want  his
either,  which  were  typically  on  the  opposite end from mine.

but  I
guess I did log in not too long ago. Whatever. There is of course
one last reason I don't wish to support Grex- it  allows [clip] 
access  to its' policy-deciding conference. I'd rather not put my
money into a place where he has a voice, thank you.          
  
Good day, tsty.
        
  
  ---clip


#353 of 367 by janc on Sat Apr 26 12:54:58 1997:

huh?


#354 of 367 by remmers on Sat Apr 26 13:41:53 1997:

Sounds like whoever-it-was is withdrawing support because we
don't censor people that he or she doesn't like.


#355 of 367 by jenna on Mon Apr 28 22:14:41 1997:

well, that's just the last one, right? *is confused about the format
of that*


#356 of 367 by mdw on Tue Apr 29 02:08:28 1997:

I don't know that it's all that appropriate to post such mail.  There is
no evidence to suggest that the original author of this text wanted this
material made public, and there are enough lacunae in the text as
presented that it is doubtful that our interpretation of the text is or
could be at all close to the original author's intentions.  One thing is
clear: the original author of this text is unavailable to be part of
this discussion.


#357 of 367 by rcurl on Tue Apr 29 05:43:06 1997:

In regard to some comments above that I don't understand what others
have been saying: they have expressed themselves clearly enough, and I
do understand. I just diagree. 

In my opinion - Grex is much faster now thanit had been for a while
with some slower hardware and less efficient software. I don't find
any serious or access problems now (though we can always wish for a faster
system). Therefore, I don't agree with the criticisms of current operation.

All the speculation (mine included) about the change making the system
slower - or not change it - is really beside the point. The system would have
been fastest if the public had never been admitted. "Reasonable' behavior
is, of course, desirable. We can find out what affect the change will have
on response by implementing the change. If a majority don't like it, we can
de-implement it. 


#358 of 367 by janc on Tue Apr 29 12:21:19 1997:

Our original plan had been to upgrade Grex to a 4/460 system.  This would have
been a very quick process (replace some cards, no software changes) but it
would have given a much smaller speed increase than the 4/670.  When we found
such good deals on the 4/670, we decided to skip a step.  This will cost us
much less money in the long run, but it means we have to stay on the old
system a bit longer to get a much bigger speed increase.  Doing less frequent
upgrades with bigger improvements means performance is less consistant, but
it also allows us to move to faster machines sooner than we otherwise would
have.  CPU-wise, we are currently going to be a bit squeezed until the
upgrade, but I still think it was the best path for Grex.


#359 of 367 by tsty on Thu May 1 05:21:21 1997:

>>re #356 ... i did have some negative thoughts about posting email in toto.
i took out the personal stuff and didn't identify the author, you notice.
  
it's the content that i considered worth the entry. i've had the
original around for quite a while, and since it the content relates
to this discussion, and since anonymity can be maintained, and since
it was a related thought on topic (by someone else), i posted it.
  
if the original author should choose to say something, ok. if not,
the thoughts stand as they are. 


#360 of 367 by richard on Sat Jul 12 15:33:06 1997:

So..update time...whats the early reviews of unregistered reading?  Has
it been a success?  A failure?  Has anyone used that feature at all?
Or has the world ended as some suggested?  


#361 of 367 by mary on Sat Jul 12 21:17:47 1997:

Yes.  Depending on your point of view, of course. 


#362 of 367 by remmers on Sat Jul 12 23:51:22 1997:

I'd be interested in seeing statistics on the amount of
anonymous reading, and in fact the level of usage of backtalk
in general. I assume that kind of information can be extracted
from the server logs.


#363 of 367 by robh on Sun Jul 13 14:52:23 1997:

The world ended for me, and I feel fine.  >8)


#364 of 367 by scg on Sun Jul 13 17:36:02 1997:

Rob, welcome back!


#365 of 367 by orinoco on Mon Jul 14 15:20:10 1997:

It's the end of the world as we know it, It's teh end of the world as we know
it, It's the end of the world as we know it, and robh feels fine...


#366 of 367 by srw on Tue Jul 15 04:34:11 1997:

The server logs are indeed extracted every week, and you can find a 
pointer to them on our home page. You can look at the counts on backtalk 
hits. The ones with /pw/ in the URL are named. The ones without /pw/ are 
anonymous. 


#367 of 367 by richard on Tue Jul 15 15:46:00 1997:

yeah but what are the percentages...I dont think the raw numbers
are nbecessary.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: