272 new of 367 responses total.
Well, Valerie's didn't pass. Mary, may I ask you to resign yours before it comes to a vote? As the vote on the other one suggests, there is approximately an even split amongst Grex's total user base that voted over this issue, and your current proposal does nothing more than incite that, and encourage ill will and feelings. Please, again, I ask you- unpropose this.
hmm...if Mary'smotionpasses and unregisteredreadingis allowed and Jenna takes
Perhaps some of the "no" voters would prefer an all-or-nothing solution. We really won't know unless we vote. And I hope we don't have anyone so thin-skinned that a vote scares them away even before we know the outcome.
I believe it is in Grex's best interest to direct policy toward keeping this a diverse and open community. Making it easy for folks to find out more about us is important. Also, I don't at all get into the concept that we who have found Grex are any "better" than those who have not and that we need Newuser as a gatekeeper to keep undesirables from getting a preview of what we're about. In fact, I see that reasoning as somewhat abhorrent. I really don't know how this vote will go. But I do feel it is the right thing to take it, as worded in #0, to the members.
As I stated in item 54(?), I voted against the last proposal and will vote for this one. Selena, don't assume the silent masses agree with you just because the haven't shouted you down.
Re 96: I hope Mary does not withdraw her proposal. I did not vote against the previous proposal because I feel that strongly about anonymous reading. I simply thought that proposal was too complicated and would cause arguments and burdens on staff time beyond any benefits. Ladymoon, your job is not to try to get Mary to withdraw her proposal. It is to convince me and other members that we shouldn't vote for it.
My sentiments are basically the same as Mary's, Peter's, and Jeff's. I voted against the previous proposal but will vote for this one.
Me too.
I find myself totally agreeing with Mary, and would have proposed the same proposal she has proposed once I found out that Valerie's failed. I take issue with the following argument, proposed by most opponents to unregistered reading. I will select Robh's presentation of it as an example, but I don't object any more to his version than anyone else's: In resp:94, RobH says: jenna makes a valid point in #90 - if these theoretical potential users can't figure out newuser, how the *^&()*^ are they supposed to figure out PicoSpan, or even BackTalk? Honestly... It is not that they cannot figure out how to run newuser. That is not the case, nor the issue, even. It is the fact that newuser represents a psychological barrier. The barrier comes from the fact that getting an account created is (if not here on grex) in most people minds a major big deal. They *perceive* that the creation of an entity here, their account, is not a step they want to take, just to be able to see what's inside. It's not that they can't, it's that they don't want to. By allowing unregistered reading, they will be able to see it, and some small fraction will decide that we are worth joining. That small fraction are highly selected to become useful members of Grex, and yet they would never have looked if an account had to be created for that purpose. The perception is the key to understanding. It is very easy for you who already have accounts to poo-pooh the amount of effort required. It is a psychological barrier, not an effort. So that is why I think unregistered reading will benefit Grex and is the right thing to do. That and all the reasons Mary, John and others have stated.
I'm in support of anonymous reading largly because of my experience with other systems out on the Net that require registration. HotWired and Electronic Minds come to mind. Both of those are systems that I've gotten curious about and wanted to look at, but didn't really have any reason to suspect that I would want to come back later. I did go through their newuser programs, since I had to to get access, but since, not knowing what was on the systems, I didn't have much reason to think I'd ever go back I didn't bother to remember my password. I suppose those are both systems I might have returned to after my first visit, except that figuring out what I have to do to get my password reset seems like too much of a hassle. And then there are all the other systems I've happened on that required people to register before using the system. Generally it seems like more bother than it's worth when I don't know what's there, although who knows, I might have found some other systems I liked if I hadn't had to go through the hassle of registereing before I could find out what I was registering for. In the case of Grex, I think unregistered reading would be a very good thing. I think we all agree (except maybe Richard) that anybody who wants to become a regular user should register. The question, though, is how people should find out that Grex is something they want to use, instead of going off to some other system. Typically now, people find out about Grex from friends, which is fine, but it certainly doesn't get us a very diverse group of people. Once people are told by a friend that Grex is something they should want to try, filling out newuser isn't much effort at all. What I'm hoping with unregistered reading is that people who don't have a clue what Grex is, or why they should want to be here, will be able to find out what we are and decide for themselves whether to join us.
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. Since Valerie and a couple of otehrs have stated they would vote yes on both proposals, I tink the next vote could be close to an inverse of the previous one. The votes are there.
Well, I felt asking peacefully would be the better thing to try. Don't say I never tried to resolve things without getting nasty first.
This response has been erased.
Re 106 - You might also note that I voted "yes" on the previous one, and will vote "no" on this one. If you're going to be that exact about it. >8)
I am going to vote yes, because I believe that unregistered web reading will yield far greater benefits than detriments. Even in the face of possible detriments, we can evaluate them if they occur, and change our minds if we judge them significant enough.
I'll be voting *NO* again (and again and again if necessary)
I had intended to state in #110 that I *preferred* the compromise, in regard for those with concerns about unregistered web reading, but now faced with the harder decision, I still opt for more access freedom for reading.
i wish there were a proposal to restart intro.cf and open *that* to the web interface. if that's not the best-of-grex ... maybe just open the coop item #57 to the web. that's a fine piece of work.
This response has been erased.
John, anytime (after midnight) feel free to fire-up the vote program with motion worded as in #0. Thanks.
Jenna, will you still leave grex if Mary's motoin passes and all confs are opened? Now that you are a member? I guess theoretically you could cancel your membership and have the remainder of the money refunded to you. Which would be a nice piece of change, which was intended for your use anyway.
I'd encourage her to. Why support something that doesn't support you in return? I will also leave, which will probably shoot the "Yes" vote up by a few. If it passes, I will look for a replacement FW for Sexuality II. I will not have mmy name put on a conference that violates the little privacy its' original posters had the day before.
It is not worth it to lose some Grexers, in the hope that other people will join. Wouldn't you rather have your good friends to converse with, rather than some new strangers that you don't already know? Sure, having new Grexers is a good thing, but this is going way too far to try to get more people to use Grex. It just isn't worth it.
Anyone ever read "The Fisherman and his Wife"? I feel that story can explain this situation.
What is the evidence that running newuser is a psychological barrier?
This response has been erased.
Selena, I will vote no on Mary's proposal, just because I don't want to upset you and others who feel so strongly about it, even though I feel myself that unregistered reading is probably a good idea. Otheres are doing the same. Please take that in the spirit it is intended, and stay in the community, and don't make this such a divisive issue. It just is not that important a matter of principle, either way. Not allowing unregistered reading does not really exclude anyone who wants to be part of Grex, and only marginally detracts from marketing efforts, if we really want to attract new users. Allowing unregistered reading might cause more strangers to read your posts, but nothing here is private anyway. You have no idea who I am, for example, and anyone in the world may sign on at any moment, and read anything on here. These arguments have already been made. Since we have to vote on it, let's vote, and then move on.
Cannons to the right of us, cannons to the left of us, into the valley of the shadow of Death we ride...
Re 122: Since you've decided to vote against your own judgement based on the fact that it would upset Selena if we did something she didn't like, may I offer the following argument in an attempt to change your mind? Since your vote is based on how much others will be upset, all I have to do is be more upset, right? So, if Grex decides to bar anonymous reading, I will hold my breath until I turn blue and whine and pout forever. How upset do I have to be before you become more ashamed of hurting me than you are of hurting her? How upset do I have to be before you decide to think for yourself, rather than wimping out the first time someone whines? Whenever things change, someone gets hurt. Whenever things don't change, someone gets hurt. You've paid your money, make your own choice. Don't let Selena or Tsty or Kerouac or Robh or Chelsea or Popcorn or me or anyone else make it for you. Grex needs *your* decision, as only you can make it; that's how democracy works.
The vote program is now enabled for voting on this proposal. As usual, type "vote" from a Unix shell prompt of "!vote" from a bbs or menu prompt to cast a ballot. Voting will end at the end of the day (EST) on March 12.
You're right, Peter...but we are not only a democracy, we're a community, and it is good to accomodate each other a bit. I'd like for us to be a community of patient tolerant adults, rather than of pouting children.
Hi. Me again. don'tworry, I'm not going to get on any high horses. I just came back because I didn't understand the parameters of the ballot and was hoping this item would explain. It hasn't. I should like to point out that not every member reads this conference. For this reason, the proposal is overly vague; some members may confuse "unregistered users" with "unvalidated users". I would recommend that, if possible, the voting booth (but NOT the motion) include a brief explanation of the phrase "unregistered user". Selena, if this passes and you choose to leave, I'll be glad to take Sexuality back. (For that matter, I'm interested in co-FWing with you again, regardless, in that conf). Rob, if YOU choose to leave, you can find me often on cal022011.student.utwente.nl handle: Cheetah Whelp (free registration, but requires a valid internet adress; a Grex account qualifies) As for everyone else, how I've decided to vote on this is not a reflection on how I feel about anyone or whom it is I trust, or like. I'm not amember, so my vote doesn't count anyway, but I am voting on principle. The issues are trivial. It's how we treat our friends that matters. My previous paricipation in these conversations let my friends done, and for that I apologize. The issues are always trivial, in both directions.
I think everyone will still be accomodating everyone else a bit, regardless how they vote on this. I never pout, whether I win or lose a vote - it is all part of the democratic process. If I lose - I conclude that I was not persuasive enough - *this time*. (Of course, not because it was a bad idea.. B^}.)
Re 127 - To reiterate yet again, I will *not* be leaving Grex if the motion passes. I'll be resigning form the Board and the Staff, and I will no longer participate in the conferences, but I have every intention of keeping my account, using it for mail, party, and other things, and I even intend to continue my membership. (Giving my money is trivial, giving my soul isn't.)
This is all contingent on how jan and steve choose to set it up. PUtting pointers to individual items is much more of a nuisance if a user has to be directed through a disclaimer screen encouraging them to run newuser. If this vote passes, then it is the sentiment of the members that a user doesnt have to run newuser, so I would hope any disclaimer screens claiming the real sentiment is to the contrary are not used. Someone clicking a pointer to a grex item should go directly to the marked item, do not pass go do not collect $200. But then again, grex doesnt own Backtalk and the authors can do what they want in the way of enacting this policy.
I just cast my second vote. Again, I voted no. It's not that I'm against opening conferences to more readers - I'm voting for the same reasons I voted no the last time. Valerie has stated that changes are on the way that will increase the bandwidth - and that's fine. I'll be glad to see it when it comes, as it'll make my life (as well as the lives of others) easier here on Grex. But even Valerie is "knocking on wood" about the improvements, which casts a doubt in my mind as to just when (or if) these changes are to take place. I've never argued that the conferences are a bad thing - they're one of the best things about grex. I may not agree with a lot of things discussed, but I am thankful that I am given the opportunity to state my opinion. It's just that right now I consider the well-being of the system itself is of a higher priority than any particular portion of it. As far as I can tell, mail is hosed right now, in that I cannot receive any mail sent from outside Grex (I'll post on system problems about that). It often takes nearly 10 minutes for my inbox to open through pine (yes, I know Pine is slow, but it shouldn't be *that* slow) - and I could go on with more. As a voting member of Grex, I cannot be asked to add more to that at the present time. Ask again when the bandwidth does increase, and I might reconsider.
Sorry, Rob. I misunderstood. I'm of a different opinion. I refuse to give money to an establishment whose President has publicly stated that the only way to positively contribute is to give money. So, for me, giving money to Grex *is* an act of giving my soul. Then again, I was threatening to give money a long time before I actually decided never to, so the powers that be probably just think this is more of my crying wolf. *sigh* I hate that aspect of myself sometimes. Kerouac, shut up. Even though I've been gone for almost two months, you're still being an idiot. There. I've done my Kerouac slam. I'm happy now.
Oh boy..I still voted no, I will continue to vote no. People post on here and expect that someone knows something about the person reading the posts. Gee is everything on every board entirely legal here? Nope. You've got minors exposed to explicit sexual material. Ah well, internatioanl <sp> legalities not withstanding..you should require people to register on here in some manner. Flame me..doesn't matter.
There are no laws concerning the availability of pornography to minors electronically. Pornography laws currently only apply to print and broadcast material. The CDA was overturned, remember? I voted the way that I did because *I* know something about the current user base.
what brighn that yo dont trust the current user base? is that what you know? that if the rest of cyberspace is like the current user base, better to have newuser to weed out the scum right? sheesh
I just voted "no" as well. Is this a trend? 8-)
re 134:
The CDA being overturned mean that the laws that apply to the rest of
the world also apply to the Net, rather than having this new even more
restrictive form of censorship. Making the case that the Net is broadcast
media would be difficult, but applying the same standards as applied to print
media would make sense.
Not really, Steve. In both print media and broadcast media, there is a source that can be held responsible. If the Free Press publishes something by me, they've made sure that I've wanted it published, and they're taking the responsibility for having edited it, etc. In Cyberspace no-one can see you type. =} There are no checks-countercheck mechanisms, and to install them at this point would be undue burden on the system. Kerouac, don't put words into my mouth. And don't assume you know how I voted.
This response has been erased.
You've been president for two months, Valerie. Continue as you've done and I'll seriously reconsider, as I already have been doing. I'm also waiting for the vote to pass before submitting membership dues. I don't want to be seen as becoming a member only to influence a current vote; I don't like people who do that, and I'm not going to follow suit. Regardless of the result of the vote, I personally feel that it's an invalid vote because of overly vague phraseology and lack of real explanation. But, then again, this is a ditzy little board in the middle of the midwest, it ain't the U.S. Congress. =} *g* It does bother me that certain people around here prefer to ignore things rather than explaining why they are or aren't doing things. I'm glad Madam President isnt following suit.
For the record. Way back there. kerouac said I had voted no on the previous proposal. He was wrong. i voted yes. He probably wasn't listiening to any of the many times that I'v said that I prefer the compromise to the uncompromising proposal. I prefer that one to no unregistered reading. As A backtalk author, I would also like to point out that Jan and I do not control how backtalk is used on Grex. The Grex board and members do that.
I trust that our membership either knows the difference between registered user and validated user or knows how to follow the directions to this discussion and ask.
A summary would be helpful to us erratic users/members/folks.
Mary, enough people in the previous discussions have gotten the two confused that your assumption has been proven inaccurate.One can hope you're never in charge of drafting a vote that actually counts.
This one would be difficult to summarize, Arnold, without prejudice. I'd suggest you simply take about 15 minutes and scan item #27 and get a feel for why folks feel the way they do then come to your own opinion. Or you could take that same 15 minutes a peel a bunch of grapes. ;-)
It would take *much* longer than 15 minutes to scan item #27...it has nearly 600 responses, one of the longer items ever in a coop no doubt. #144...brighn/babozita, I dont follow you, Mary drafted this vote and it counts? and you still havent answered my previous query about what exactly it is you know about our current user base that makes you distrust cyberusers in general.
Re #139 and the issue of adding explanatory text: On the motion to clarify who may run for the board, Valerie wanted me to add one or two *paragraphs* of explanatory text, after the voting had started. I thought that would be completely inappropriate and refused. I did respond to her request but evidently didn't discuss it with her as much as she would have liked. I think that adding explanatory text on the content of a motion to the ballot itself is a really bad idea as it could bias the outcome. If people want explanations they can come to the discussion item and see what everybody had to say about it rather than what one particular person thought was needed in the way of explanation. I always put a reference to the discussion item on the ballot so that people know where to look. In real government elections (as contrasted with ditzy little midwest bbs boards) that have proposals on the ballot, you just see the proposals as worded, not what somebody decided should be added to "explain" them, and for very good reason. If people want to be informed about an issue, they should read the newspapers etc. And if they want to become informed on a Grex issue, they should come to the Coop conference and read the discussion here. For the benefit of anyone who may have followed the pointer on the ballot to this item, I'll supply a glossary: Unregistered user: A person who does not have a Grex account (i.e. has not run newuser). Verified user: A person who *does* have a Grex account and who has also supplied identification in accordance with Grex policy for obtaining certain kinds of access, such as outgoing telnet. The current motion has only to do with unregistered users, not with verified users.
if adding 'explanatory text' to a ballot proposal - such as the non-prejudicaial description/definition of the words included - if adding such a clarifier to a proposal constitutes 'bias(ing) the outcome' then there is a prejudice in the proposal <which the clarifier removes>. btw, as far as i know <correction expected if wrong> only the status of 'member' includes having 'supplied identification in accordance with grex policy'. thefore i might conclude that the glossary is only 'close' at this time.
No, usenet news posting requires verification but not membership. That's moot at this time since Grex doesn't carry usenet, but if it ever does again, the policy will apply.
#147. ThanksJohn, that works. Kerouac> You're making so many assumptions, child. I said I voted the way I did because of what I know about the users of Grex. I can't answer your questions if you're going to make assumptions. As to a vote counting, I meant in the real world, i.e., an important vote in an important realm. This vote is trivially idiotic, I've said as much before. Even within the functionings of Grex, it's an idiotically trivial issue.
#150...okay brighn, leaving all assumptions aside, what is it you know about users of grex that makes you vote the way youdo?
I see that Mnet hasnt cornered the market on whineybutts. It is amazing too because grex's whineybutts arent even the same people as Mnet's whineybutts. wow. Anyhow, since I cant figure out a way to piss everyone off with my vote, I guess I will just have to vote based on my actual opinion of this issue even though I feel funny voting over something so silly. I honestly am surprised that people care about this so strongly one way or another. I would almost consider this to be the kind of issue that the staff could implement without a stamp of approval from the membership. <<shrug>> This proposal gets a yes vote from me. (Just an aside: I didnt realize that so few members voted. I mean I already feel funny about voting on issues here because I am a member but I dont log on too often. Should my opinion on things carry more weight that someone's who logs on every day but who isnt a member? And why would someone who logs on every day not become a member unless they cant afford it. Why would they let someone like me have such a large say in policy issues here?)
Slynne, we meet again, and well you have stated my feelings here. I too will vote yes on this issue. It seems to be a TIATP, considering the easy ways to disguise one's self in newuser. Anyone posting their thoughts on the Internet should be aware that the "whole world is watching!". So why the problem with having some of the world take a look once in a while? I could understand if someone was a battered spouse, or in the witness protection program (and had children to protect) or had other good reasons to be super-careful about their privacy. But, if those were the problems, are there not other solutions, such as abstinence? **[Mary - you are so much fun to joust with. Pardon me John, for just a minute. You said Or you could take that same 15 minutes a peel a bunch of grapes. ;-)" I respond: Only if I had someone to enjoy them!
Kerouac> That there are some good users out there and some prime shitheads who don't respect me -- or anyone except themselves. And some malicious bastards. And some wonderful people who are fun to disagree with because their intellects match mine. And others that are fun to tease because they're stupid and gullible and make dumb assumptions about things. =} And there are people with short attention spans... that affected my vote, too. Gee, Kerouac, this is fun, teasing you. Maybe you'll get me to get to my point before the voting is over. And maybe not. We'll see.
I say again: Kerouac stimulates discussion. Agree? No, or maybe, or . . .? But stiffle? NO. I believe we are misconstruing the essence of Grex.
I just voted- still no explanatory text, and as it wasn't there when the vote started, this vote MUSt be considered invalid! The proposal makes no sense: "MOTION: To allow unregistered users to read all Grex conferences except the Staff conference." Sure, one could read through here and get the OPINION of what an unregistered user is, but if there is no definition in the motion, ESPECIALLY in a motion that is so arrogantly simplistic in it's assuming wording, the wording of that motion is INVALID. All you can get here in coop is the OPINION of what this motion means- but the actual motion is so very vague that MY opinion of what it says is just as valid as Mary's!
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re #157: I didn't "open up a dialog" because I didn't think anything needed to be changed, but as I recall I suggested that you might do so if you felt differently. (Guess I'll confine further responses on this to the new item.)
Someone (pfv, I think) entered an item in the M-Net general conference reporting on the "unregistered reading" controversy on Grex, which has prompted discussion (surprise, surprise) of what M-Net should do. I entered a response detailing my viewpoint on the issue, and it occurred to me that it might be reasonable to post it here as well, as one more effort to say why I think this proposal is a good idea and why I hope it passes. So here's what I said on M-Net: ---------- Speaking as one who's been participating in the Grex discussions of this all along: I favor unregistered reading (i.e. reading any public conference on Grex via the web, without a login id) as it establishes, in effect, a "guest account" with an easy interface that people can use to check out Grex. Right now, to do that you have to run newuser and create an account to do that. There lots of people who do that, log in once, and never come back -- and until their account is reaped they're using Grex resources: space in the passwd file, space on the disk. With the proposed read-only web interface, they wouldn't be using resources if they decided not to come back. More important than the resource usage issue: Maybe with an easier interface, we'll attract more people who find a discussion interesting and are motivated to run newuser (which also has a web interface on grex) so that they can contribute to the discussion and, thereby, become part of the community -- people we wouldn't have gotten if they'd had to go through the extra step of taking out an account in order even to *read* anything. There's currently a member vote underway on Grex on this issue. The concept has certainly elicited a lot of vocal and emotional opposition, although my sense is that the majority of members favor unregistered reading. We shall see. The compromise of making an "intro" or "best of Grex" conference web-readable has been proposed, but what's "interesting" or "best" to one person is not necessarily so to another. So I much prefer making everything open and letting folks decide what they like without having somebody pre-filter it for them. The opposition to this seems to be based, as best I can tell, that unregistered reading would be "less private" in some significant sense than the kind of access that people have now. Given that anybody can run newuser on Grex (just as on M-Net), not give any correct personal information, and can then read *and post to* any conference -- anonymously -- this argument just doesn't hold water. If people think that what they enter in conferences *now* on Grex or M-Net is in any sense private, then they are kidding themselves.
Thank you, John. I agree and voted yes.
I think if Mary's proposal passes, and robh announces he's resigning, that the board should decline his resignation offer. Keep rob on in name as a board member for the rest of his term. Probably wont have problems making quorum anyway. Or make rob a "board member-emeritus"
Another cucumber of an idea, Richard.
I agree with richard. Jeff, please reconsider. We do not want to lose robh!
#162 is coercive and goes against principles of free will. If rob wants to resign, let rob resign.
re #139 - Valerie, I'm glad to hear that. However, having strongly reconsidered my vote, I think I still am going to vote against the measure. re #162 - What kind of hypocrites would the board be by declining robh's resignation? For a board that is striving to improve the grex community and open it to others, it would be a total reversal to not allow a board member to decide his own fate upon the board. (A newbie may enter Grex on his/her free will, but a board member cannot leave it?) If robh resigns, and the board declines it - I will most likely *not* renew my membership when it comes due, because that action is the antithesis of any open-minded community.
Relax. Declining a resignation is only a sign to the person resigning that the body values his/her continued participation. Of course the person can always resign, period. There is a measure of "face" involved. And that is as it should be. The board of directors is responsible to the members who can cast votes. That is the essence of Grex, or any other corporation. The staff is another question, but Grex, so far, is blessed with a responsible staff.
Issues of personal choice aside, if the Board wants to decline my resignation, they have every right to do so. It even says so in the By-Laws. (Yes, some of us have read the whole thing. >8) They should probably consider, though, that I would not be attending any future Board meetings from that point on, which would make it that much harder for them to make quorum for a meeting. It would better serve Grex's needs (IMHO) if I were replaced as quickly as possible, to keep things running smoothly. (The funny thing is, if my resignation is accepted, then the 2/3 quorum will temporarily drop to 4 Board members until my replacement is elected. Another good reason to accept it ASAP!) Of course, I'm still hoping that I won't have to resign. I'm not exactly eager to leave.
I wish that Kerouac would leave RobH's contingent decisions out of this item. I am not comfortable with pinning Rob into a corner. I understand that he has already made a solemn vow, and I am not anxious to address that issue either. This would be a completely personal decision of Rob's. Should this proposal pass, I would be inclined to accept his resignation from the board (though I have no say), but to decline it from the staff. I would leave it entirely up to Rob to decide what he should do with his time, but I would encourage him to reconsider, if he felt he still had that option. I have personal reasons for wishing Rob to stay on as well. I am not anxious to take on the work he would stop doing as co-webmaster. I would probably begin a search for a replacement. Still, I feel strongly enough about this issue to vote for the proposal, and that is partly because in general I do not think it proper to consider what a staff/board member might do if a proposal passes. It gives someone way too much influence over Grex's policy if we consider that.
Hmm, just checked out what the bylaws have to say about
accepting resignations, and here's all I found, in Section 4.e:
A BOD member shall be removed from office *if they
resign* [emphasis added], not be available for meetings
or respond to BOD communications for a period of four
months, or be voted out of office by a vote of the
membership, with 3/4 of the ballots cast in favor of
removal.
I read that as meaning that if a BOD member resigns, then the
BOD is obligated to accept the resignation.
Even if there were no such clause, I think it would be poor
judgement for the BOD not to honor a resignation.
This response has been erased.
Rob, please reconsider. It is not too late. No one can expect everything to be exactly as they might want. This issue is one that will not be over whatever the vote says. Real experience will tell Grex what to do, and you are needed to evaluate that experience. I sincerely hope you will find a way to stay. We need you. And, you have a sense of humor (which implies perspective in viewing life) - so stay, please. I repeat, it is not too late to continue. Heck-fire man! Grex wants you! Not many can claim that.
Stop begging, Arnold, it's unbecoming. I was mourned when I left co-op. When I returned, the same man who mourned my leaving laughed at my return as a personal victory. Stop pressuring my friend to go against what is to him a very important decision.
Well, in a way it *is* too late, adbarr. srw wasn't kidding when he referred to a solemn vow up there - even if I had changed my mind about this (which I haven't), I'm not about to disgrace myself or my goddess my going back on a promise I've made to her. There's no way that I could participate in this conferencing system if I knew that anything I typed was being broadcast to any idiot on the Web, and it's not fair for the members of Grex to have a Board member who won't take part in (or even read) the Co-op conference. Or a staff member.
(#174 slipped in)
I won't leave Grex, but I won't conference sanymore. I'll go back to talking to friends and using my free e-mail. I don't want to be apart of communities I'm not safe in. That's my solemn vow.
robh, ifyou want to quit staff and eave the conferences, that is your own prerogative, but when you ran for the board you made a committment to grex. Absent extraordinary circumstances (like you move away or take a night job where you cant make meetingws anymore), it is inappropriate for you to resign before your term ends. Besides, your reasons for resigning do not hold water: 1. It is the staff, not the board, that enforces grex policy. Resigning from staf accomplishes your goal of removing yourself from the loop. 2. As a board member,you can always abstain from any future board action with regards to this policy. Grex cannot succeed as an organization if it has officers who thnk they can just walk away from their committments and .etc whenever they feel like it. As a user of grex, you can stop using grex anytime you want, but when you agreed to become an officer of this organization, you made a committment to the other members of the board and to the membes of grex that you would serve in an "official" capacity. This unregistered reading issue is not a big deal. It involves a web interface that is slow and not that many people are going to use anyway. At the4 very least, you should agree to stay on as a board member and attend meetings until a successor is elected. Dont just walk away and leaveyour seat vacant. That is a common courtesy and you owe grex that. If you dont like this policy, dont run again next time. That would be fair enough. But just walking away is hurting grex just for the sake of hurting it. But ifyou do leave the confs, I'm willing to volunteer to take over the INtro conf. I'd like to see that continue and it needs an fw who reads enough confs to know where the good items are.
This is not in the best interest of Grex. Anyone posting responses here who expects the world will never know is ignoring the facts. The essence of this system is openness. Else what? A club? A clique? A cabal? No thank you! I feel privileged to particpate in and use this system. If the world reads my thoughts and errors and foibles then so be it. i wonder sometimes what it must be like to be in a repressive society and worry about the "thought police" reading my entries. Are we there now? I do not think so. A user can be anyone. Anyone can say anything. Where is the danger. Those opposed should, in my personal and humble opinion, state their real fears. "Anyone reading my statements" is not defined enough for me. Anyone can do that now. So what is the problem. I agree with kerouac, in general. Heh. We must both be rebels here.
I've already clearly stated my problems with it. A million times. Scroll back, for goodness sake. And Kerouac, GREX Does not need a board member who doesn't want to be there anymore! No organization does!
This response has been erased.
grex is not closed. your posts here are not protected. Anyone can read them using any name. Unregistered reading is nothing new, it is grex as usual. I am frankly surprised robhhas never strenuouslyobjected to the presence of observe mode in picospan..isnt that the same thing? This is about fear. This is about paranoia. The very things grex had to overcome just to getthis far. It is about being deeply distrusting and suspicious of the majority of cyberspace, because it is invisible. There is something wrong with an environment where nobody will talk to anybody unless they give their name, rank and serial numbers. Rob, is it REALLY going to hurt you if someone pulls an item of yours from the Synthesis or SEx confs through a web search? The internet cant live up to its potential unless those of us who populate it can learn to live and trust each other. Grex plays an important role in this, and this is why I have objected so strenuously to this place adopting rules which feed paranoia and distrust, rather than fight it. Having unregistered reading willhelp Grex continue to be a bright, shining example of what is good in cyberspace. Where people are t4rusted. Where everything is open.
Minimizing my Kerouacs...
Of course it is "closed": it has rules, and accounts, and
authoritative figures that can reap (execute) you for abusing
your welcome..
Unless, of course, you don't consider "newuser" closed, and thus
the entire argument is specious.
This Net-love and "Anarchy-Rulez" mentality is rather amusing.
Arnold, repression includes trying to coerce somebody into breaking a religious commitment because you personally don't agree with his decision. You're disgusting me. Let it drop already. I'd say thatsame, or similar, thing to Kerouac, but I'd be wasting my keystrokes. Incidentally, I voted yes, because this motion will, in my view, do exactly the opposite of what its framers intended. I find that highly amusing, and I've become so cynical that at this point I want nothing more than to watch this thing explode and watch egg splatter all over Mary Remmers face.
Good thing I didn't give you that $18 for membership, then. >8) I had worked out about two screens' worth of responses for Richard, but then I realized that I would be encouraging him. Folks, this has to be the biggest non-issue of this entire vote. If anyone wants to talk to me about it via e-mail, that's fine. This item should be used to discuss the proposal, not me.
If you -- or anyone -- had given me membership dues, I'd've abstained from this vote anyhow. I will not become a member just to vote on one particular issue. Purposes and views of Grex aside, I *personally* see such behavior as unethical (last sentence direct at Mme. President)
When I started conferencing on grex it was a rather radical departure for me. I knew I was speaking publically, and not always speaking "popular thoughts". I haven't stopped, though I admit that tiny fragments of paranoia pop up now and then, when I realize that people will form an opinion of me over what I write, and sometimes such opinions have consequences. The very creation of grex was a step by a group of people that had overcome, or set aside, this worry. At the time grex was founded, it was rather radical to have such open access, but particularly *access to post*. A founder would have to confirm (or deny) this, but I believe that the "newuser" process was installed for a number of reasons, not the least of which were to convey nettiquette to users, and to form a recognizable community of those that would be participating in the conferences. My support for unregistered web reading of the conferences comes from these considerations. Unregistered reading is actually less radical than the original conception of open participation, and just reading makes no contribution to the community except to invite participation. I am inclined to think that if the web had existed at the time grex was created, that open web reading without registration would have been an original component, since it is entirely consistent with the founding mission. This proposal returns us more fully to that mission.
If the web interface was fast and efficient enough, newuser wouldntbe necessary because there wouldntbe theneed to bookmark confs. If one could pull up a hundred responses in an item in a few seconds and scroll down, theydont need bookmarks. In order to keep bookmarks,you have to read through entire confs. With a fast web interfac, youl could simply be prompted for aname or handle every time you click post. Newuser could be, and maybe someday, obsolete. I know of many web conferencing setups that dont use newuser. Some sites, you can go and post every day using a different name ifyoui want. I think at some point, Grex is goingto have to move awway from Picospan, because it doesnthave the source, and and in order tokeep pace with the rest of cyberspace, itneeds an interface it can change and update. Having participation files is something of anuisance anyway, becauseany user can call up yourhom e directory and find out all the confs you read. Some people might not want anyone knowing that sort of info.
Re #186: Very well said. I agree.
Open web reading is entirely consistent with the founding mission. It will be useful to Grex. It will not have the effect that has been cited, not at all. An advertisement on the Web will be a lot more useful for the intended effect. I offered one. I was ignored. Too bad, I was serious. One problem with having so many cooks and no clearly identified Head Cook (apologies, Valerie, but President is more nomenclatural than function -- but then, you knew that) is that when someone offers something and there's no interest, no-one feels inclined to say, "No, thank you." How rude. But enough about me. =} this "consistent with the founding mission" attitude is annoying, and that's what tweaked my shorts in the first place. It's less annoying coming from Rane, since he isn't actually a founder, but all the same, I can't help but mist up and hear the Stars and Stripes... (1) Places change. Attitudes change. (2) It was perfectly possible to code a guest account on telnet; the only difference between such an account and a user registered one would be that the password couldn't be changed. An oversight, certainly, by the founders, but no-one's come forward to offer one. Hrm, rewind, you'd also have to code the guest account so posting was impossible, but that really doesn't sound THAT hard to me (not that *I* could do it, of course, but still...). (3) Grex staff thinks too much of Grex' importance in the universe, and overestimate's Grex' ability to hold people's attention.
None of those statements are reasons for not allowing unregistered web reading.
Did I say anywhere that they were?
staff thinks too much of Grex' importance in the universe, and overestimate's Grex' ability to hold people's attention. Perhaps. But we aren't operating completely without evidence here. In the six years since its inception GREX has grown incredibly, and we still have lots of familiar faces from over the years. Besides the importance of GREX in the "universe" matters only with GREXes own universe. The ability of GREX to hold people's attention matters only insofar as it holds the attention of a core group of like minded people. If GREX is so unimportant and so unable to hold your attention... nevermind.
Say it, Misti. Tell me to leave. I dare you. But you're mighty defensive if that's the only thing in my recent posts you've chosen to respond to. A nerve stuck, perhaps? (struck, too)
No, actually I wasn't about to ask you to leave. I was about to ask you about your reasoning in still being here if GREX is so unimportant and uninteresting? That statement simply made no sense to me. A lot of the rest has made a great deal of sense. Some I even agreed with wholheartedly. (Maybe I'm not alone in my "overly defensiveness" if you only saw an invitation to leave where I saw a pointer to puzzling logic.) <g>
unimportant in the universe and unimportant to brighn are not the same thing, last I checked.
Sorry, Misti. I was in a pissy mood a few hours ago. The MOTD for tomorrow will review WHY I'm in a somewhat pissy mood today. *smirk* Grex is important to me. I just don't think that most people who wander by on the Web will give two shits less about it. I think that many people who wind up staying on Grex iitially do so because they went through the effort of creating an account, they might as well stay a week or so to see if it's cool. No account creation, no motivation to stay. I think that there are more people who stay because they've done the work of creating an account, then decide they like it, then there are people who will skim past Grex anonymously then come back with piqued curiosity. That's why I think an advertisement would be more effective than anonymous reading: many more people will anonymously read once, then forget Grex even exists. Did that make sense? If not, I'll rephrase it.
Your argument is lost in the 14,000 users that ran newuser and still do not appear to care about the Grex community. Maintaining those 14,000 accounts tasks resources. Perhaps it is better that a lot more unsupportive visitors won't create accounts and primarily the supportive will.
If we didn't delete accounts that were inactive for three months, I might agree with that sentiment. But since we do, I don't.
#197. Rane, maybe you should go to the doctor for tha wax in your ears. Have I not said that I voted yes on theproposal? Have I not said that the proposal will HELP grex? You have just told me exactly WHY i reasoned that the proposal is a good thing, then told me that my argument is bad, when it has caused me to come to the same conclusion you have come to. Geez, Rane, normally you strike me as a reasonably intelligent fellow.
Hehehe.. Too funny..
You think it's slow now..? Just wait.
A lot of those accounts can't possibly be using the confs, and
I'd wager they are here primarily for mail..
I guess the "ponder" is of how many of those accounts pony up
any sort of "support", and I do not mean telling all of their
friends, teachers or whatever about the free email.
*Shrug* You have a Tiger By The Tail - have fun with it.
Paul, in #183 you said you voted for this proposal in order to spite Grex - and so that "this thing explode and watch egg splatter all over Mary Remmers face" - hardly intelligent objectives. I'm not sure I understand #198 - I thought that we had 14,000 current, active, users, who will not be affected by the 3-month rule, but who do not support Grex conferencing (or the organization). I may have misunderstood when that number was put forward. How many users are there that do not support conferencing or the system?
No, in order to spite Mary Remmers, Rane. And I was playing. Sheesh.=} Ahem. To clarify for the humor-impaired: I believe the result of this proposal will be to decrease the number of people running newuser, and ultimately to decrease the number of new users accrued. I believe that the new users who are accrued will be of a higher qulaity overall (by higher quality I mean, more participatory in conferences, and/or less malicious in Party and other communication fora). I find it ironic that the stated purpose of this motion is to increase new user accrual overall, since it will have a negative effect. If my predictions are correct, I will not refrain from showing joy at Mary Remmers' expense, because I don't like her. It will be difficult, though, to demonstrate an actual effect (unless it's very very significant), and so my joy will most likely take place solely in hypothetical realms. I shall seek to find other ways to be joyful in life. It's too bad, Rane, that after all your years you have yet to obtain what so many of us obtain early on, a sense of humor and sarcasm. I can envision you as the pater in Name of the Rose, poisoning the pages of the Comedia so theother monks die if they read it. For the humor-impaired: the previous paragraph was meant as a friendly barb, not an overt insult. I have spent the better part of a year as a belligerrent twit. I am using the occasion of my 29th birthday to return to my Devil's Advocate, Devil-May-Care, impish self. Enough disclaimers, kids? =}
voting 'no' on dumping the whole of grex 'out there' *and* then following that with a vote of 'yes' to put the crafted intro.cf 'out there' would achieve the pro arguments, diminish the con arguments and maintain whtever system-wide peace we still have.
100% agreed, Tsty. Make a motion before voting closes on this motion and repeat that suggestion in your motion item.
brighn, yourloine of thinking is not logical...if more people use grex, in any way, more users will eventually run newuser. I hope Mary's proposal is the last word on this issue..even *I* am sick of this debate (and with me that takes some doing) Lets just do it, see how it works, and if someone doesnt lke it after a few months, then make a proposal to revise the policy.
Laughing out loud, Richard! You all sound extremely reasonable for the moment. I agree, that doing this with just one conference, on an experimental basis, seems like a mild and sensible approach. Let's discuss it a bit, and make sure no one objects to that--but see if we can avoid votes, and bitter arguments, and subcommittees and the supreme court, hey? How about a discussion item for this?
doing it with one conf even on an experimental basis serves no purpose. It is only a way of avoiding the issue of mary's proposal for a while longer, which is whetherb unregistered reading is is going to be available n all confs. The previous vote was the defining moment in that debate. Having unregistered reading in any variation of selected confs was emphaticaly rejected. the only question now is all or none. The previous respojnses and threats to make further proposals, has the effect of showing certain people with their heads in the sand. Unregistered reading will either be available universaly or not at all. Period. No subsequent votes are going to change that sentiment.,
O.k., Richard, slowly then. Let's say a BBS which requires one to run a free registration program attracts 100 people a day. Of those, 75% feel compelled merely by the fact that they've spent 15 minutes running newuser to come back a few times. Of those, 33% decide they like Grex enough to stay, but another 33% decide to screw around since they've got this account to screw around on. Results: 25 "quality" users, 25 "malicious" users Let's say a BBS which allows guest access attracts 200 people a day. Of those, only 25% are interested enough to run newuser a few days later. Of those, 90% come back a few more times. 75% ultimately decide to stay, 5/6ths of whom think Grex is wonderful and 1/6 of whom decide to screw around. Results: 25 "wqulaity" users, 5 "malicious user the "quality" user accrual rate is the same, the "malicious" user accrual rate is lower. I honestly don't think that this will increase "quality" user accrual rate, I think it will decrese "malicious" user accrual rate (i.e., it will keep the "riff-raff" out, to a degree). these numbers are hypothetical, of course, but I don't think they're unreasonable. Math: 100 * .75 = 75. 75 * .33 = 25. 200 * .25 = 50. 50 * .90 = 40. 40 * .75 = 30. 30 * 1/6 = 5; 30 * 5/6 = 25 All right, cucumber?
nope, your math is flawed...I dont know where you get this idea that 75% of people who run newuser come back. the percentage is MUCH lower than that. All you have to do is look at the average number of login reaps grex does daily to figure that out. You have no basis theefore for aying the use accrual rate would be the same. IN fact once this proposal ins implemented and has had time to be fully utilized, it will bring many more users in, than the current setup, therefore by simple math, increasing the aqccrual rate. Maybe it wont increase it percentage wise, there is noway to tell. But in terms of hard numbers, it is bound to.
Always counter numbers with numbers.. And better logic..
BTW, nice low Kerouac Rating there - thanks ;-)
hmm... How many Kerouacs per hour to light a 60 watt bulb..?
(Anyone have a handy conversion? ;-)
re # 210 Gee you can use cucumbers to run light bulbs. Is that like the battery you make in grade school with a lemon? :-) <set drift=off>
If the proposed change is imlemented, monitored, and evaluated, can't we then make a judgement. Some opinions may be validated and others discredited. Until then, I would much prefer to not see name-calling. This is an experiment, is it not? Why not wait until the results are clear, then we can indulge in the ITYS and all the rest. Then again it might help, or it might be neutral and the proponets will be validated, at least a little. I did not see anything in the proposal that said it could not be modified or elimnated in the future. I doubt that any harm will be permanent, if there is any harm.
Much to my chagrin, I'm afraid I have to report an error on my part. When I announced the closing date for the vote as March 12, that allowed 14 days for the vote. It should have been 10 days. This was not intentional; I simply confused the length of time allowed for the discussion of a proposal and the length of time for voting on a proposal, and used the former in setting the closing date of the vote instead of the latter. So the close of voting *should* have been set for March 8, four days earlier than the announced date of March 12. Apparently nobody caught this, myself included, until today, when Mary noticed it and called it to my attention. Not that I'm blaming anybody but myself -- it was my responsibility to announce the time period for the voting correctly. It is now March 5. To change the voting deadline to March 8 at this late date seems to me inappropriate and unfair, since the March 12 date has been well-publicized in this item, in the vote program, and elsewhere by an agent of Grex (i.e. me). People might not log in and be aware that they have less time than they thought they did to cast a ballot. I think that the least disruptive and fairest thing to do would be to stick with the announced closing date of March 12. If the announced date had allowed *less* than 10 voting days, this of course would be inappropriate and the voting period would have to be extended to meet the bylaw requirement of 10 days. But leaving the closing date at March 12 will allow 10 days and also give people the time that they were told they'd have to cast a ballot. The alternative would be to scratch this vote and start over, notifying eligible voting members by email that this was being done and indicating that they should vote again. But I'm not sure that such a re-vote is necessary or helpful. My apologies for the mixup.
If you extend the voting period, I also think it would be important to note that people's votes who have paid for Grex membership through March 8th, but not through March 12th (if there are any) that their/those(if any) particular votes should not be discounted.
question: what hapens if thevote is a tie? (it could happen statisitcally) Does Valerie as president og rex get to then cast s a second vote as the tiebreaker to decide this?
I agree John - let the vote go until the 12th. Re #214: All Grex memberships expire either at the end of the month or on the 15th of the month, so there's no problem there.
Thanks, John, but I think this a really, really minor. ;)
Unfortunate mistake. Let's hope the vote isn't close enuf for the losers to quibble that the votes cast in the extended period made the difference.
WHAT!? No quibbling?!?
Are ya' Daft, mon? What shall we use to power the drives, laddy?
I'm tellin', yah lad - reduce the Kerouacs and yah jus canna'
power up the Warp Field!
Motions with tie votes fail. There is no "chair" for mail ballotting, so there is no one to break a tie.
Richard, my math is immaculate. My estimates are most likely flawed, or, more appropriately, inaccurate. My numbers can only be flawed if I had claimed any level of accuracy. I specifically disclaimed accuracy with the word hypothetical. This was merely an example of why higher exposure doesn't necessarily mean higher usage. I think it was an adequate example, even if the numbers don't match Grex's. Your response is causing me to believe that you've taken to participating in spaking-in-tongues. Aspects of it certainly weren't English, not that I know of it. =}
I think your conclusion is probably pretty accurate, babozita. I believe that it is your hypothesis that is flawed. Perhaps Kerouac wants to see more newuser runs. I will be quite pleased if the effect is to reduce the number of newuser runs. I am interested in seeing more people run newuser for the purpose of conferencing. I am interested in seeing fewer people run newuser because it is simply the only way you can do things on Grex, only to realize that they don't want to keep their account. Even if 90% of the people who look at these conferences reject them, and thus don't run newuser, it will be a victory. Constamtly creating and reaping accounts that have been used once or twice before abandonment is a waste of Grex's resources. The 10% who create accounts to conference will be well selected users, not the random users we have today.
Re 213 - I'm fine with extending the voting. I actually did say to myself, "Shouldn't the voting be for ten days instead of fourteen?", but with the jumble my life has become, I figured I was the one in error. Besides which, that's four more days of my being allowed to stay. >8)
fine with me remmers to keep the voting period at it's 'longer' state. it's the right thing to do, and only a tiny 'oops,' no biggie.
#222> In what way do you think my hypothesis is flawed? Do you think the number of "select" (i.e., people who actually WANT to be here) users will go up? I honestly don't. I don't think it will go down or up, appreciably. I think the way in which Mary's proposal willhelp Grex is in the significant decrease in newuser runs (by people who aren't interested in Grex). I do think we'll lose a lot ofpotential "select" users, too, because they'll skim through once and forget about Grex by the morning light, not having a handle and a password scribbled on a cocktail napkin. I caught the error at the very beginning, but didn't mention it because it was so trivial.
I wonder if we need an item called "Predictions" or maybe two items, one for "Dire Predictions" and another for "Not so bad Predictions".
And, "I forgot to mention it, but I made that Prediction" Predictions.
I like Rane's idea best. =}
I would only suggest that if this passes, that there be a period of notice, say two weeks, before implementation, so that people who do have a problem with this have ample time to remove any items they dont want unregistered users reading. Its possible that an fw might wantto restart their conf or something, you never know.
Of course, we would not want Joe Palooka to read our posts, would we. I agree, Richard. I just think this is a tiny tempest in a huge teapot. There must be a subtlety here (the "issue") that is continually flying over my head. I can think of some really strange reasons for not wanting the public to read public statements, but the rational basis escapes me. I have disgusted some (one, at least), I hope I can provoke others to explain. I like the idea of the third conference rcurl (#227) suggests. This reminds me of the apocryphal security classification: "DBR". Destroy Before Reading!" And, it makes about as much sense. You want privacy, stay on the a:\ drive, and then protect yourself. Here, there is no expectation that I can see.
<gasp! the world stops momentarily> I agree with Richard, there should be a waiting period, so people can clean things up, or make counter-proposals :)
You know- I don't care which way this vote goes- it's totally and perfectly INVALID. The proposal was so poorly defined that the vote winds up being over policy that affects NOT ONE THING. I expect that all votes will be thrown out. Anything that will affect the issue will have to be re-proposed, and allowed another 14 day discussion period, and all thanks to Mary Remmers not knowing a lick about how to word policy. Thank you, Mary. You've made my entire week!
As I've already Istated, I agree with Selena, but know that she will be ignored. Ryan and Richard, it will take so much more than two weeks for most of us to clean thins up, it's silly. Two weeks for fair warning is wise, though; I just disagree with the motivation for it. Arnold, yes, I , too, have seen the light. There are brigands on Grex, some of whom I once trusted. The presence of brigands, I ultimately decided, is no reason to deny the rest of the unwashed masses the privelege of my sagacious elocutions. "And if I don't know who to love, I''ll love them all. And if I don't know who to trust, I'll trust them all. And if I don't know who to kill, no sucide -- I'm already dead." -- Live, i forget which song (so don't quote it again!) I made a msitake about who is trustworthy and who isn't. I've since changed my perspective.
I also agree with Selena and Brighn. The thing is kinda worded ambiguosly.
But what will result is very clear: conferences will be readable from the web without users having grex accounts.
Right. And I think it's clear to everybody reading this discussion that that is the intent.
is taht what the proposal says, in vote? (#235)
#236> Intent? OIC. Rules shouldn't be based on intent. They should *say* what they mean to say. Although, frankly, I'm glad the web isn't named in the vote, since this allows anon telnet access too... which, if I understand Mary right, she isn't averse to (nor am I, since fair's fair) My problem with the wording is that it doesnt mention how its intent would be ccom;lished, and therefore must be interpreted as broadly as possible: anybody who can figure out how to access grex'smaterials, regardless of route, can so access it. I'd've felt more comfortable if there were SOME limitations on it. BUT BUT BUT allof this is moot, folks. There are rules of order here, and if y'all were uncomfortbale with the wording of the actual motion, y'all should've piped up before the official vote was announced. It's too late now.
Ah ha! That's the problem! There are *NO* rules of order here. Whenever the notion comes up (usually from me) to adopt some rules of order, it gets pooh-poohed by many - it is not the "grex" way, they say. So, you see, this motion is right in the grex manner - isn't that appropriate?
I think it's a good idea, rane. i think one of the first ones should be a limit of time between when an issue is voted on and when it can be voted on again (regardless of outcome)
Not linking this policy to Web access, Newuser, or Picospan was deliberate. In fact, not long ago there was a discussion here on coding "guest" access which would have allowed unregistered read access through telent. There was none of this "needing to know who is reading my poetry" response to that issue, if I remember correctly. But alas, the code never got written. Maybe someday it will be. This vote, as worded, would allow unregistered reading though Web or telnet, and would provide for a consistent policy. Newuser and Picospan might not always be our primary software - so why mention it unnecessarily in our policies? As to the concern that the word "unregistered" might not be understood... I did a little grep on items #27 and #55 looking for how many times the word "unregistered" had been used in the discussion. In item #27 it was used 224 times. In this item it was used 53 times. I don't think the term is vague or pulled out of thin air. Anyone who has read even a little bit about this issue would be familiar with what it means.
Curious. All of the discussion of this proposal, and Valerie's ill-fated
proposal, was about allowing unregistered access *from the Web.* Now
the author says the broad wording was intended to allow unregistered
access *by any method.*
I disagree. The intent of the wording may be inferred from the
terms of the prior discussion. If adopted, I think the policy will
only authorize unregistered reading from the Web.
But, david, it won't be limited to that- you see, Mary wants her cake and to eat it too. She wants the intent of the term "unregistered" to have meaning beased on this discussion, but the fact that this discuccion has only been about web-access shouldn't limit her wording she says. You can't have it both ways, Mary. Either the discussion in here defines things for the proposal, or it doesn't. Learn to actually write clearly first!
Unregistered, throughout the discussion, has been used to mean not needing to go through Newuser and select a personal login and password. I see nothing unclear about what the word "unregistered" means or what it matters how you get connected to the machine. What we are voting on is whether unregistered users should be allowed read access to Grex conferences.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
No one is going to read the proposal 3 years from now. However, Valerie's concern would be resolved by grex keeping a record of the consolidatyed *acts* of the board and membership, like most corporations do, rather than just having them scattered all over minutes and old coops. (However, that would look like good organization, so it isn't likely to happen... ;->)
It will happen if somebody volunteers to do it. It will not happen if people just grouse about it not happening but nobody volunteers to do the work.
The membership votes are already documentented pretty well. Check out /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/prvotes.
s/prvote/prvotes
This response has been erased.
MAry is exemplifying well here why I've grown to distrust her so. She's a political snake, the worst kind. Mary, *I* know your intentions well enough in drafting the proposal, but it's clear that other people failed to notice that mention of the Web was absent, and assumed its presence. Now you're saying it's their fault for not noticing? I recall some 100 or so posts into a discussion of unregistered users, it became clear that half the people inthe discussion thought we were talking about unvalidated users. Don't tell me that people active in a conversation know what's going on. All right, they should, but don't say "would" (as in the last line of a few posts back...) Folks, I think Mary continues to demonstrate that she uses dirty politics and a softshoe to get her way. Do we not violate her gross violation of netiquette in posting private mail I had sent her? (Er, 'Do we not remember her...') That's why I'm torn about this issue. I think the proposal, in the end, is in the best interest of Grex. But I think that by ratifying it, we're ratifying dirty pool (Mary's dirty pool). Unfortunately, I also realizt that many of you feel that not ratifying it is ratifying my previously extortionist techniaues. But I've stopped. When will Mary?
Maybe, Mar
This mis-statement of the proposal's scope by its author is another good reason to vote NO. Remember--if you have already voted, you can still change your vote by running the "vote" program again.
Which I heartily reccommend- if you REALLY believe in open access to grexreading by people who have never seen the newuser interface, then still vote no on THIS asininely written proposal, and propose something that says what YOU wanted it to mean, not this nasty bit of dirty pool by Mrs. Remmers. Sure, I'd much rather that people who haven't set up a grex account be excluded from reading the conferences, but at least if that idea is to be voted against, let it be legitimate, not this piece of trash! At least your opposition, in both the forms of Valerie's first proposal, and cmcgee's, were written clearly enough so that there was no WAY to mistake what you were voting against. Give us the same courtesy, will you?
how could mary have written her proposal MORE clearly? it was only one line long! **sheesh**
Calling Mary a politic snake and a purveyor of dirty pool is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in some time. I don't always agree with Mary, but I've never seen any indication that she's anything less than scrupulously honest. Sheesh, guys, this is getting into mud-slinging, you know. Ick.
I have to agree. Selena, I think your tirades are uncalled for.
Perhaps Selena just doesn't have any good arguments against the proposal.
mta said it well. If there is such a big problem with the terms "registered" and "unregistered" user, then why not propose an amendment to the proposal, or a whole new section of the by-laws that defines those terms. Tell me if I am wrong: Grex does not verify the vast majority of users, and only does limited verification of members. If non-member users can easily supply fake information in going through the process of newuser, then what, really, are we registering? I fail to see any meaningful difference between registered and unregistered here. Do you gain anything by knowing that Mickey Mouse, 1234 Pacific Boulevard, Burbank, CA is reading your posts? Mary has demonstrated her integrity here many times. I oppose any accusations against her honesty and good-faith. Grex could use more with her wisdom. Grex has always been a system of open-access, and has fiercely resisted anything that would change that basic precept. It should continue to do so, and the proposal is an effort in that direction. There is an old saying: "Don't throw excrement on someone and then tell them they smell bad!" Relax a little.
A handful of folks have let their enthusiasm for an issue mostly overwhelm the content of their responses. I have not been taking any of the comments personally. I understand where they are coming from. One word of advice though - when you shift from discussing the merits of an issue and start focusing on hostile name-calling and character-bashing, well, you've started a negative campaign, and those can backfire quite easily. If this proposal passes, and I'm not sure which way it will go, then it is neither to my credit or my fault. Lots of people have been following this issue, are well informed, and will bring their opinions to the outcome. Whatever happens it will be the results of a majority vote of interested members.
Well, Mary will be as responsible as anyone else who voted yes. >8) I don't hold it against Mary personally - if she hadn't proposed this, scg would have. If Steve hadn't, someone else would have.
Valerie has changed her vote from yes to no. You can too!
David, shush, you're getting pushy. =} Misti> That you're the most vehement defender of Mary's honesty... well, I shan't finish that sentence. Rob> Quite right. And I'd've been more comfortable had it been Steve. Richard> Cucumber, cucumber, cucumber! CUCUMBER! There I feel better now. =} How could the proposal have been made more specific? Another line, doofus. And someone else> Ah. Amend the bylaws to clarify definitions? I thought the beauty of Mary's proposal is its simplicity. So we adopt it (if it passes), then run through a set of proposals that, taken together, would be as complex as Valerie's? Pointless, pointless. Mary> How can this backfire for me? I don't care which way the vote goes! Either way, I win! I have no stake in the vote anymore. So now I can devote my time, all of it, to slurring you, silly. =} Ain't that fun? =}
Re 263 - Valerie changed her vote? I should ask her why.
And around and around we go. The arguments are chasing their own tails. Name calling will not alter that fact. First we don't like the proposal be cause it is not specific. Now we don't want to be more specific, because it would be to complicated to understand. Dancing! I wan't to go dancing! Specifically, I want to go dancing on the head of any pin I can find? Which is it? Not specific? Too specific, or just too moderately specific, but not what I like? Pray tell, I will hold my breath.
<<are you turning blue yet?>>
To whom do you speak, Arnold? And if you're uncomfortable with this discussion, the command is "forget".
Discomfort with a discussion should never be a criterion for using "forget". Both disputation and learning can be "uncomfortable", but that is no proper cause for abandoning them.
Whining about a discussion is just cause for "forget", Rane. =}
In many cases I agree with you, Rane. But GREX is a hobby after all, so if people come here not to learn but to socialize, I see nothing wrong with using "forget" to avoid uncomfortable conversations. (For that matter, if the discomfort comes out of a reaction to mudslinging and/or obnoxious behavior, I don't think *anyone* shoul;d have to deal with it.)
Except that condemning specificmud slinging is a form of mudslinging...
This response has been erased.
But Valerie, if both votes fail than we dont have unregistered reading at all...you should change your no vote back to a yes, and then vote yes on colleen's. That way,, whatever happens, we have unregistered reading. If Mary's vote is ddefeated, there will be a big push to defeat colleen's so the whole idea is scuttled. You said you supported unregistered reading. If you do, you would vote for both proposal s. I dont understand your vote of no this time
I don't think Richard should be telling people how they should vote.
I think we should respect the good judgment of Grex' President for Life in Alternate Years. Vote No! (Unpaid political announcement from the Semi-Permeable Membrane Caucus)
I don't think David should be telling people how they should vote. *giggle*
Paul, there is a difference between Richard's and David's response.
The only difference is that one wants her to change and one doesn't. In my opinion, dpc's comments are disingenuous because of his bias. I think Babozita was pointing that out in his giggly way. Valerie is perfectly capable of making up her own mind how to vote, but I was certainly curious to know why she changed her mind. Now that I know i am a bit disappointed. I am inclined to believe that a compromise will fail, because Valerie's own compromise failed. I would (like Valerie) prefer a compromise to Mary's proposal. I am voting for Mary's exactly for the reasons Richard laid out. If it fails we will probably have no unregistered reading at all. This is ironic, that two camps that favor unregistered reading can't agree on a proposal that they can both vote for. I oppose this irony by voting for a second-best solution. I will work hard to see a compromise solution replace the one we are voting for today, whether this one pases or not.
We *really* need to move beyond this issue.
**richard thinks valerie is letting her emotional response to the ramifications of this issue cloud her judgement, and she should change her vote back**
This response has been erased.
The president has asked me to cool it on the mudslinging. I had left co-op anyhow, but I came back to apologize. I've had strep throat since Friday, combined with a stomach flu and a 102-degree fever. While that isn't an excuse, some of the inflammatory posts were made during said fever. Valerie (my wife, not the president) and Jenna can both attest that I haven't quite been myself emotionally. I apologize for any discomfort that I may have caused. I never said anything I didn't mean, but I chose langauge and styles that were inappropriate to this forum, at this time.
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.
I grew up in a family that tended to disagree with enthusiasm. No problem here. I hope you feel better soon, Paul.
I still hope Mary's propoal fail. I'm a fan of free choice and it doesn't allow that.
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
Fair enough. I'll have my resignation ready in the afternoon.
I hope you, cmcgee, and you valerie are happy! Hads you two not switched your votes, this thing would be DEAD.
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.
*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. =}
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)
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!
"Flip the switch", what an appropriate phrase for it. >8)
siwtch, bird, they're both nouns
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.
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.
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!
I declare a mis-vote!
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.
David, if you will read response 30, posted on February 15th, you will see that my vote changed well withing the proper voting period.
[Actually, it was my mind that changed. The proposal wasn't even being voted on at that point]
I'm only talking about confirmed late vote-switchers, Colleen.
will this be implemented before the other motion is voted on? *is trying to decide when to leave*
#305...yes, there was no period of delay stipulated and staff is obligated to carry out member or board ordered directives with due diligence3.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I would appreciate some time. It would be curteous. Prove to me you're no incapable of even that. I'm beginning to wonder.
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.
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.
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)).)
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.
Rane slipped in.
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.
I think you're showing a good grasp of the (non-) issues here, senna. Congratulations.
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.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
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.
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.
I can't imagine what's been keeping you busy. ;-) Thanks, Jan.
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.
I said that a little more "specifically" than I had intended. :)
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.
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.
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.
get the little bit before drowning the support base then, as my broken record plays again .... and *not* without audience it seems.
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!
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.
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.
Untrue..
It also depends on the NUMBER of ports opened, what can be run,
and whom.
contributes? yeah, sorry - not symptomatic, though
Since the unregistered reading will be (as presently planned) over the Web, modem or pty availability is not an issue. System load is, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the IC hasn;'t said much, yet
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.
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.
(Not that I'm telling anybody to shut up, of course. :)
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.
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.
"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.
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--
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.
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?
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.
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
huh?
Sounds like whoever-it-was is withdrawing support because we don't censor people that he or she doesn't like.
well, that's just the last one, right? *is confused about the format of that*
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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?
Yes. Depending on your point of view, of course.
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.
The world ended for me, and I feel fine. >8)
Rob, welcome back!
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...
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.
yeah but what are the percentages...I dont think the raw numbers are nbecessary.
You have several choices: