Nominations are now open for the Cyberspace Communications, Inc. Board of Directors. In accordance with Article 4, Section d of the Bylaws, nominations will close on November 15 and an online election will be held December 1 through December 15. Terms of office begin on January 1, 2007, and are two years in length. Three seats are up for election this time around. Grex membership is a requirement for serving on the Board. Any current member of Grex who has paid at least 3 months' membership dues and meets state of Michigan eligibility requirements may run for and serve on the Board unless they are currently serving and are completing the second of two consecutive terms. People in the latter group are eligible to run again in next year's election if they are still members at that time. The terms of four board members have one more year to run: Lynne Fremont (slynne), Larry Kestenbaum (polygon), Bruce Howard (bhoward), and Mark Conger (aruba). Hence there is no point in nominating any of them. The three board members whose terms end on January 31 are Joe Gelinas (gelinas), Jan Wolter (janc), and John Remmers (remmers). Joe Gelinas is completing the second of two consecutive terms and is therefore *not* eligible to run this time, although he can run in future elections. Jan Wolter and John Remmers are eligible to run for re-election. To appear on the ballot, a person must be nominated in this item by November 15 and affirmatively accept the nomination in this item before the start of voting on December 1. Seconds are not required. Self-nominations are permitted. See http://cyberspace.org/local/grex/bod.html for a history of Board service since 1996.236 responses total.
I nominate John Remmers (remmers) and David Hoffman (scholar).
I will nominate both Jan Wolter and John Remmers. I also will nominate Nathan Harmon and Tod Plesco
I second the nomination of Jan Wolter (janc) and Todd Plesco (tod).
I second the nominations of remmers and scholar.
re #2 & 3 Thanks. I accept the invitation.
I second janc and remmers, and would like to nominate Mary Remmers (mary).
I'll second the nomination of mary remmers
I nominate walkman and nharmon
i nominate todd tod plesco
(If the new board members' terms begin on Jan 1, shouldn't the old member's terms end on Dec 31? As opposed to Jan 31 as stated in #0 above.)
January is DOUBLE BOARD MONTH on Grex! Double your pleasure, double your fun.
Oops, my mistake. Board terms end at the instant of time that separates December 31 from January 1. One second you're a board member, the next second you're not.
re #11 I just kinda assumed the incumbents would get re-elected.
I nominate Steve Andre and Sindi Keesan.
resp:14 I think both of those people would make good board members.
I also think cyklone would make a good board member and I would nominate him if I thought he would accept.
Sorry, I decline (deklone?), but I appreciate the thought.
i nominate scholar and slyne
slynne; sorry
I cant run, my term isnt up!
I, too, respectfully decline my nomination due to conflicts in my present responsibilities. Thank you for considering me. Although Mike may not be able to accept it, I'd like to nominate Mike McNally anyway. I'd also like to nominate Dan Cross as well.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I decline the nomination.
I'll accept.
i nominate james howard (jp2)
resp:23 Glad to hear that, Dan!
I'm still undecided about this. I don't feel like I've really been a very good board member for Grex. I've been making it to the meeting (with a little help from Mark's "you do realize that there is a board meeting tonight don't you?" phone calls), but I've not been really keeping up with Grex very well, or doing much of anything between meetings. In my past board terms I've been more active and productive. But it is kind of fun, and I think I'm a useful presence at the meetings. I don't know.
You make a tremendous difference to Grex, Jan. It would wonderful if you'd agree to be a candidate for another term. And generous considering how busy you are in real life.
This response has been erased.
Seconded.
resp:27 yeah. I pretty much 100% agree with that.
Here are the current nominees. Those who have accepted are marked with
a *.
remmers
* scholar
janc
* tod
walkman
mary
steve
keesan
* cross
jp2
Deadlines (EST):
o November 15: last day to enter names in nomination.
o November 30: last day to accept your nomination and/or qualify for
the ballot by being a member in good standing who has
paid at least 3 months' dues.
The election is conducted by online vote from December 1 through
December 15.
If nobody else has gotten around to it, I second remmers, janc, mary and steve. And I decline the nomination if one or more of them will accept, since I don't think I represent the majority of grexers very well (nor do I live near enough to where the meetings tend to take place).
I'll make my habitual nomination of Colleen McGee (cmcgee). She's been active on Grex for years and has extensive experience serving of boards of non-profit organisations. She'd be a real asset, and hopefully she'll accept this time.
Hey, thanks John! Yes, my 10 years on the AATA board has come to an end. I'll be glad to accept the nomination. PS, Mark, I'll email you to get current on my dues, so I can legally do this.
I nominate Anne (jadecat) to return to the board, and krj
I nominate jvmv (trap) and cdalten (herasleftnut)
resp:25 Thanks, but while I'm still living outside of Ann Arbor- I don't think it's a good idea. See me next year. ;)
ok :)
Tomorrow, November 15, is the last day to nominate. Nominees have until the beginning of voting on December 1 to accept. There might be people who have been nominated but are unaware of that fact because they don't read this conference. It's the responsibility of the person making the nomination to alert the nominee.
I nominate our cfadm, i.
I nominate kingjon, who has taught himself more about software than I will ever know.
I decline due to distance. (I'm going to college in Grand Rapids.)
We had a staff member in India. You use the phone to attend meetings.
I avoid talking on the phone when possible. I might accept a nomination in a few years' time when I've finished school, if I stay in the Ann Arbor area.
Voteadmin: #31 doesn't list whether those who have not accepted the nomination declined it or haven't responded. Could the next list include this information?
I simply didn't list those who had declined.
Ah.
I think these members would be good on the board, so I hearby nominate
them:
jep
jared
eskarina
other
srw
I second. Other has already been on the board. srw is probably going to refuse as he is staff.
re #48 and 49
I think these members would be good on the board, so I hearby nominate
them:
jep
jared
eskarina
other
srw
I think it is odd to nominate people who don't participate in this conference.
Jared is the only participant and he hasn't been here since July....
See below:
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? part jep
User jep not a member
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? part eskarina
User eskarina not a member
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? part other
User other not a member
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? part srw
User srw not a member
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? part jared
jared Wed Jul 26 19:51:22 2006 Jared Mauch
Heh. I participate in the conference but only via Backtalk. I decline the nomination but I appreciate the thought, remmers!
user keesan not a member. As far as I know I am a paid-up member and my outgoing ssh still works.
user remmers not a member
The current list of members of Grex, to which I referred when making my
nominations, may be accessed by running the UNIX commands "member" or "members"
("member" pipes through a pager, while "members" is suitable for piping through
grep, say). The BBS command "part" only shows which users have posted in this
conference -- not a reliable indicator of membership, since some members may
not read coop, and we allow anyone to post here regardless of membership.
So why does 'part' say that keesan and remmers are not members?
No idea: } Ok: part keesan } } loginid last time on name } } keesan Wed Nov 15 17:12:30 2006 Sindi Keesan } } 1 participant total. } } Ok:
#55: As I say in #54, the "part" command -- built into Picospan, mind -- tells you about "participants" in a conference, i.e. those who have posted responses.
I accept the nomination to run for the board. I nominate Glenda Andre'.
I nominate Marcus Watts.
I accept.
I accept.
I second the last two nominations. Don't you need to be seconded before you can accept?
i nominate keesan and kingjon
I nominate Dick Devos.
It is too late to nominate us and besides we were both already nominated and declined. Or maybe your 1:40 posting reflects Ann Arbor and not your local time. Thanks anyway. My seconding was 8 minutes before the deadline.
I nominate John Kerry.
You don't need to be nominated or seconded to run for the Board of Cyberspace. You merely need to indicate you are willing to run.
re #64 I'm in Seattle so yea..I posted it 3 hours previous to the timestamp.
I'm surprised I don't show up as a participant, but that may be because I only use the web interface for conferencing. In any case, I appreciate the nomination, but I'm inclined to decline.
The part command is not working correctly.
e.g. I'm not a participant (still).
i nominate nate harmon
Thanks Brett, but I have already declined.
Re: #40, Thank you, but i'm afraid that i've already got more commitments than i can pay proper attention to, and so must decline.
Here's the list of nominees at this time. Those who've accepted are
marked with a *, and I've included their full names as well. I haven't
listed those who explicitly declined. People have through November 30
(EST) to accept their nominations. Voting begins on December 1.
remmers
* scholar David Hoffman
janc
* tod Todd Plesco
walkman
mary
* steve Steve Andre
jp2
* cross Dan Cross
* cmcgee Colleen McGee
jvmv
herasleftnut
jared
eskarina
srw
* glenda Glenda Andre
* mdw Marcus Watts
I'll add that I'm a bit on the fence about accepting. In the event that I do accept, since I am also voteadm -- the way that's been handled in the past is to have a second person verify the ballot count. Also, I'll add my voice to those endorsing Jan Wolter. I hope he accepts.
So do I!
i don't think herasfleftnut will win this one :(
I hope Mary will consider accepting, too. Though I know I can't vote for anyone...
Unfortunately, I have to withdraw my acceptance. Sorry.
After conducting some interior dialog with myself, I've decided to accept my nomination.
Although I appreciate being nominated, I'll decline this time around. Some really good people are willing to serve. Cool.
I am glad to hear you will be running, remmers!
Me too!
I am happy to ACCEPT my nomination for re-election to the Grex board of directors. Thanks to all who have supported and encouraged me.
Yeah! And thanks.
Okay, remaining nominees have until the end of today (Nov. 30, EST) to accept, should they wish to do so. The polls will open on December 1, as soon as I know the complete list of candidates and have verified their eligibility with the treasurer. I've sent all declared candidates on how to create a "campaign statement" viewable from the vote program. In the interest of redundancy, I'll repeat the instructions here: (1) Create a text file in your home directory named "statement" (note: filename must be lower-case). The file must not exceed 22 lines in length; each line should contain a maximum of 79 characters. If you exceed these limits, the vote program will not display the entire file. (2) Insure that the file is world-readable. If you need assistance in setting this up, let me know and I'll provide it. If you've been a candidate before and have an old "statement" file lying around, you might want to edit it to insure that it's up to date.
I have decided to withdraw, given the wonderful field of exceptional candidates. I believe there are more good candidates than seats, and would will be supporting some of them in the election.
Sorry to hear that, Colleen. I've removed your name from the candidate list. The polls are now open. To run the vote program, type "vote" at a Unix shell prompt, "!vote" at most other prompts, or from the web, go to https://grex.org/cgi-bin/pw/voting-booth . Anybody can vote, but only the votes of members in good standing will be counted in determining the outcome of the election. The polls are open through December 15 (EST).
I have to agree with #88's "more good candidates than seats." I hope those who are not elected will agree to run again in the next election.
Absolutely! And I'll offer to be a mail helper too.
The election ends this Friday, December 15, at the end of the day (EST.) Steve Weiss (srw) will be doing an independent count vote. As soon as the treasurer has certified that the voters group is up-to-date (so that we know whose votes to count) and Steve and my counts agree, I'll post the election results. Steve will be doing the count sometime this weekend, but I don't know how soon he can get to it, so be patient.
The Board election is over. Out of 50 eligible members, 20 cast ballots. Steve Weiss and I did independent counts, which agreed and are as follows: 10 cross 1 glenda 15 janc 4 mdw 15 remmers 5 scholar 7 steve The winners are Dan Cross, John Remmers, and Jan Wolter.
Congratulations to Dan, Jan, and John.
Congratulations to the winners, and thank you to everyone who ran.
Thanks. Oh my; more after I get some free time on Wednesday! This most humbling!
yay!
Good job gents. Now get to work! ;)
Congratulations to all! This is what, the 15th year of having elections. Thats pretty cool.
The first board election would have been in 1991, so right: 15 years, 16 elections. History quiz: Can anybody name, without looking it up, the members of the first Grex board?
Bonus question: What color shirt did Captain Pickard wear when he met Captain Kirk.
I wish to add my congratulations to the winners.
(Obviously, only folks who were around Grex in 1991 could do the history quiz...)
I was here and could do it but I'm having more fun ridiculing the idea.
Gosh. Let's see... Valerie was the first president, so she must have been on the Board. I think Dan Romanchik was the first treasurer. Marc Unangst was still under 18 so he probably wasn't included. I think Marcus refused to run because outsiders like myself thought of Grex as "Marcus's New System". Um... My guess is: Mary Valdivia (chelsea), Valerie Mates (popcorn), Dan Romachik (danr), John Remmers (remmers), STeve Andre (steve), Katie Geddes (katie), Brian Dunkle (bad) Or were there 9 Board members? I don't remember. Congrats to the winners of the 2006 election. Thanks to all who ran!
I was the first president. Marcus (and many others) ran but wasn't elected. It's always been 7 members. You got 4 of 'em right - popcorn, remmers, steve, and danr. So there's 3 to go.
Hmm..Jeff Spindler and Marae Price? *snicker* Oh wait, I'm thinking of a 501(c)(3)..
I've started an email list, consisting of the seven board members for 2007, for purposes of scheduling the January meeting. If any of the board members-elect see this response but *haven't* received the two messages I've sent so far, please let me know.
Please try to keep board business on the records, too, folks.
I got it but I have to admit that I had to go looking for it. My email is getting so much spam lately that it is nearly unusable.
Re #109: Of course.
congrats, you board people !
I didn't see it, but probably deleted it by mistake. My brain goes a bit numb after the 500th or so deletion.
Unfortunately when you have a dictatorial, non-visionary, inflexible, and (sum of parts) incompotent staff - the users lose, lose, and lose. It is a shame that Grex can't get basic system administration/system utilities working. There are much better free-shell systems out there, offering many more services, utilities, and membership strategies. Grex may have been an honourable, competitive (in terms of services) system over a decade ago...but, today, it is --- sadly --- nothing but a (tragic) laughing basket-case of fuckups.
Oh, I don't know. I think there are some pretty nice people who hang here and I tend to be able to get on most of the time. We're not perfect but to listen to you it sounds like we should just set the hardware on fire and slit our wrists. Sorry, but I think our biggest problem is a few problem users. And they aren't that big of a deal.
Some of us feel that Grex's biggest problem is apathy and a general comfort with the status quo.
It's not apathy.
resp:114 dictatorial? You mean like demanding a decision made or else you were going to leave and never come back? (the adult in my is still on vacation, and the child is wandering through Grex.)
There's a few people who need a match lit up; the hardware is a lot more diligent, responsive, and visionary than those individuals. If you mate with them, the shit tastes like caviar.
Regarding #117; Then what is it? I'm with Nate.
There's often a fine line between merely being comfortable with the status quo- and demanding change merely for the sake of change. Sometimes change is good, sometimes it's not necessary. For the layman it's sometimes hard to tell what side of the line some of you "WE MUST CHANGE" types are on.
True.
You don't "have to" change, but if Grex wants to move forward (and I'm seriously doubting that) then big changes have to take place, because the current processes have totally screwed the production line and it cannot keep good people enthusiastically particpating in staffing it (note, this does NOT include symbolicly staffing it, either). If you think geez Grex must be great because of its balance sheet -- you're a moron. Most of Grex's shallow bank account stays propped up because of large one-off occasional generous donors. The question you should be asking is if Grex was financially sound (and it is not) is what services or give backs has/is it providing to the user/community base. You only need to log onto freeshell.org and know half a degree or two about Unix/bbs/conferencing to see Grex is well over a decade behind and falling further and further behind every second. It's sad enough that Grex is in the position it is in. What's even more tragic is that supposedly responsible/intelligent/caring Grex-folk think it is all lovely and snuggly.
This response has been erased.
resp:123 I don't think Grex is great because of the balance sheet, I think Grex is great because of the community of people here. I've always thought that one of Grex's main purposes in being was the formation of community. Also- I DO think changes need to be made- however, your insulting and negative mode of arguing doesn't convince me that the MAJOR CHANGES you're suggesting are really the best course of action. I would like to see e-mail restored for all users, I would like to see newuser reopened so we can GET newusers. The RAID array conversation is an interesting one and I'd like to see that pursued. Merely slamming current staff and the members of Grex doesn't really propel anything but ire forward, now does it?
Nice, Anne.
What I get most out of grex is the community thing. It would be fabulous if we could get some new people here. Right now, of course, we do have some technical problems in that area what with newuser being turned off and such. But as Anne points out there are also some other problems that arent technical in nature and those are just as important.
No major changes. No complaining. Keep your heads down and stop making waves. Business as usual. Drink the Kool-Aid.
resp:128 Todd, are you suggesting that ALL change is good? That change purely to change is what we should be striving for? As I stated- there are times when change is needed, stagnation can be deadly, however, not ALL change is good, or to the benefit of the system. If changes aren't thought about we'll just end up trying to jump in 8 different directions and blow through what little money Grex DOES have in the bank.
I totally agree with jadecat on this one. change just for the sake of change isnt helpful at all. I mean, there are a lot of things that grex has done right and changing those things wouldnt be helpful at all. That being said, there are a lot of changes I would like to see.
I agree with slynne. I don't get where people make the conceptual jump from, ``there are problems'' to ``change for the sake of change.'' Clearly, there are some things that need to be changed. Among them: 1) Stagnation and apathy within the community. I think this is hard to guage for people *in* the community, but consider that the membership level has nearly halved in the past few years. It needs to be asked, ``why is that?'' Do people perceive that as a problem? If so, is it worth fixing? If not, why not? If peole are content with the community as it is, why bother turning on newuser? Is grex supposed to be about an *actively growing* community, or the same group of people who have always been here? 2) The spam problem and email in general. Grex email, when it works, has some serious problems. Come on, grex can do better than that. 3) The newuser thing and abuse. Once again, grex can do better than that. 4) The various staff issues. Points (2) and (3) can only be addressed with the assistance of staff, but there aren't staff resources available to address them in any real way. I've outlined several ways in which I think that at least the spam problem can be (partially) addressed (including: making email opt-in, doing automated verification via paypal and `sponsorship' of users by members to allow off-site email, putting in spam and virus filtering), but there's no one on staff with the necessary combination of time *and* experience to make any of those things happen. Is this something grex should try and correct? If so, how? Clearly some long-time users and contributers are disillusioned and unsatisfied with the direction the system is taking. Instead of just saying that they're insulting and writing them off, perhaps a better course of action is to ask *why* they're so frustrated and dissatisfied, and work from there.
re #129 resp:128 Todd, are you suggesting that ALL change is good? Is that what I'm saying? Is that what you read from "NO major changes" and "No complaining" cynicism of mine? Where did I say ALL?
It's quite sad really. The whole denial.
Regarding #132; Yeah, I really didn't understand that one myself. Folks, the issue isn't about changing everything because people like change, it's about making *some* changes (granted, some of which could be major) because *some* things aren't working. However, it seems like whenever someone says, ``some things on grex need to change...'' and then voices frustration that either (a) things aren't changing, or (b) they're changing at the same historically glacial pace, there's an almost knee-jerk reaction to come to the defense of the organization and/or community and say that all is well, why rush things, question people's motivations and/or intent, lambast the naysayers, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it...'' and etc. It's almost as if the perception is of an attack *on the organization*. I think that the thing that gets lost when people do that, however, is that no one is necessarily *attacking* the organization, just the state of the organization at the moment. There's a big difference. Some people think that grex is great the way it is, and others disagree. What happened to respecting differing viewpoints and being able to express one's opinions? At the moment, there are some people who really feel like grex has some serious problems. In some cases, these are long-time contributers who have donated their time, money, and energy to this community over the years. Why don't we give those people the respect of giving their opinions some consideration, instead of just dismissing them, which is what *I* perceive to be happening in some (rather notable) cases?
I have never contributed anything, nor been here long, nor care about Grex (not to mention that I have no clue about the technical or political problems - what problems? - on here). It is pretty clear that I just like making trouble.
Dan, it certainly sounds to this listener like you and Mic are indeed attacking the organization, especially staff members. They have been mocked and criticised, had their reputations and volunteer efforts slammed, and told they are the ruin of Grex. Yuck. These are also people who are so adult, and basically nice, that they aren't even fighting back. I suspect their response is to simply try to ignore you. Obviously, the present climate here isn't one which fosters digging in and donating even more time and effort. Which feeds the whole vicious process. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few key volunteers walk away. And worse yet, the morale here is so doubt off-putting that it would probably deter any reasonable staff candidate from raising his or her hand and jumping in. Yes, Grex has issues that need to be addressed. But trashing our existing volunteer staff is not the way to get things done. I think this is the point where we disagree the most. The way to improve Grex is to get people thinking upbeat and positive about our community, not to bash and polarize. Identify problems and see them as challenges not failures. But you know what, it's a whole lot easier to get up on a soapbox and scream about who is at fault than it is to quietly get behind a team, ditch ego, develop friendships through respect, and build a sense of enthusiasm for problem solving.
resp:132 Todd, in resp:128 you wrote "No major changes. No complaining. Keep your heads down and stop making waves. Business as usual. Drink the Kool-Aid." Which was bizarre to me because it followed several posts from people who were all advocating change! However, they, and myself, were saying that we want to examine things before we make changes. So yeah, I read in that cynicism that you think that the current situation is completely bad and that we need to change everything. resp:131 your point #1 has actually been the subject of many a conversation back when I was on the board. It's just that no one ever really came up with a good way to get new people here. And, am I completely deluisional here, or was your post resp:122 actually *agreeing* with my post resp:121 where I explained that sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between people qho advocate change for the best of the group, or who merely want to see changes made. What's killing me here is that sheer number of people who DO think changes need to be made- and apparently all their comments are completely overlooked by Cross, Mic and Tod. There IS an agreement that the way things are right now is not good. That we DO need to change. Which seems to be getting completely ignored by some of you. Where there's disagreement is in where we should be going- what path we should be persuing. How about we try to continue this conversation without slamming anyone? Argue for the changes you want to see based on their merit and QUIT blaming current/previous staff members? If you're idea is so wonderful- it's merits will tell.
Well, Dan seems to be willing to join the team as a board member at least. Hopefully that will be a positive experience for both him *and* for Grex.
re #137 Well, I don't think things are "completely" bad nor do I think we should change "everything". I just think that when someone makes a suggestion for an update to a module that they shouldn't have to endure the wrath of people that are never participating with co-op unless someone has suggested a "change". And that participation is something always along the lines of "Let us consult The Oracle and get back to you." Really, its like the worst union shop of system admins I've ever dreamed of yet its volunteers and some of which are willing to actually do the work but aren't being allowed.
We need to have some way to get things done (put together new hardware, fix mail, fix newuser, implement a spam filter) in less than a year. Have board assign a task to a staff member to be done within a certain time and if not done, assign it to someone else? Ask for non-staff volunteers to help? Who would want to join a system (assuming new users are ever allowed in again) where the motd says outgoing mail has been temporarily suspended for a year?
I've expressing what is bothering me in #139 Now let me share why I think it is important we see "some" change. Pointed out in the agora cf, the traffic has diminished. It is also apparent staff volunteerism has waned. The mood in coop is adversarial and demoralized. Most importantly, Grex is a system. Systems need maintenance, updates, and a lil standardization never hurt anybody in the long run (especially when/if you have staff turnover at some point.) Some of the volunteers (myself included) are eager to do something a lil more often than once every two years. What I would like to see is a few choice pieces of the system agreed upon by all of staff which needs some "work". Each person on staff should be given the opportunity to exercise their skills for the greater good of the system. I am not sure I know exactly what the opposition to this idea needs to make this happen but I suspect they want to be involved and in the loop. So, here's the question for those who have a hard time accepting "any" change: What do you need? What is your perspective? How do you feel about all of this discussion? What are your suggestions?
resp:141 Don't let this shock you too much- but I agree with your entire post. I also agree, as you wrote in 139 that a suggestion for change should not be met with wrath and a conversation about Oracle. ;) Unfortunately, I don't have the technical knowledge to know where to begin to make technical changes so that newuser can be reopened and so mail can flow again.
re #142 I don't believe you need technical knowledge to contribute the guidance of system improvements. I appreciate your comments. I think newuser is a great place for staff to involve everyone. What does staff need to get it running?
Regarding #136; Frankly, Mary, I've come to believe that you look at the situation through the lense of your own biases. You've made it pretty clear over the past several years (in fact, ever since I made a comment about friends of mine who have had abortions later regreting their decisions) that you don't like me, and since then, I think you've made little effort to conceal that my opinions carry little weight with you. So, that you feel that I am attacking the organization carries very little weight with me. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. That said, as a (soon-to-be) board member, if you'd like to make *constructive* comments and suggestions, I'm certainly open to entertaining whatever you have to say. But snippy comments such as, ``are we having fun yet?'' and ``what have you done for grex?'' and statements of the form, ``all you do is complain and demoralize our volunteers'' will be ignored from now on. I campaigned on a platform of change for grex; I intend to follow through on that. As the other Remmers said of me, perhaps I need a thicker skin. I'll grant that that might be true. But, if honest criticism -- not to be confused with ad hominem attacks -- are going to drive away volunteer staff instead of being accepted in the spirit in which offered, then perhaps it would behoove those staff people to grow slightly thickers skins as well. If they can't do that, then perhaps the best thing for all is to thank them for their service, acknowledge their extensive and important contributions to grex, and encourage them to ceed the reigns to other people who have more energy and will to move the organization forward in the direction that *it* wants to go, rather than just those few people. After all, there are tens of thousands of grex users worldwide; the desires of 20 or 30 in Ann Arbor Michigan should not, in my opinion, determine the direction for the rest. Further, the fact remains that many long term grex users and contributers are dissatisfied with the current state of the system. That should not be ignored just because (a) you don't like the manner in which they voice their concerns, or (b) because you don't like them on a personal level. To paraphrase our own Jan Wolter, just because someone says something in a way that *you* feel is abrasive or unproductive doesn't make them any less valid or worthy of consideration. As for building friendships based on respect --- that's an implicit value judgement on your part that (a) I (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't already *have* respect for the parties in question, which I can only assure you is untrue, and (b) that somehow it is more important for, say, me to seek the respect of others than for them to seek mine. You get the respect you earn, Mary, and part of earning it is giving it. I respect those who have been on grex longer than me, but I'm not going to play Happy Happy Joy Joy games when I honestly, truly, feel that it is not in the best interests of the organization. Your way has dominated for 15 years, but it is clearly breaking down. An organization either recognizes that and responds accordingly, or whithers and dies. Which would you prefer? Finally, it would be a mistake to think that people ``aren't fighting back'' because such an idea is an absurdity: you can't fight *back* if no one is *fighting* you in the first place. And no one is fighting in the first place. Criticizing, perhaps, but the two are different. If that criticism is just ignored, however, then that *is* telling. Regarding #137; Yes, I am agreeing with you that it's sometimes hard to see the difference. And clearly, sometimes the delivery of the message obscures the message. However, that doesn't mean that the message is wrong. You know, I think some people have provided some pretty decent suggestions for getting others to explore grex; in particular, scholar posted some items about six months ago to encourage membership, including allowing hosted graphics on web pages (for grex members), and for doing away or restricting the ID requirement. Some solid technical advice has been given for alleviating some of the woes grex faces on the, er, technical side. I think all of these things are wonderful ideas, but *where* is the staff input? Has staff responded to anything about making email opt-in, for instance, or setting up a spam filter or virus filter, or setting up RT, or the continued discussion about changing around the password hashing algorithm, or any of the other things people have posted recently? I think that the discussion in item 27 in the garage conference is kind of telling. I actually wrote and tested code to make that change, but discussion just fizzled (and some of Marcus Watts's responses sort of crystalize the demeaning of reputations and such that Mary Remmers was referring to). And I would definitely say that agreement that the current state of things is not good is clearly not universal.
I have been on Grex for over a decade, both as a user and staff member. The only *good* thing that some have pointed out with Grex apparently is that the Grex community (people) is/are awesome... well, actually, it has never been worse (and is going further arse-shaped every day). Not only have some of the best technical (former staff members) and non-technical standard users left Grex, but the community is dieing. Perhaps as some of the longer-state-Grex-folk reach retirement age, they are happy with a closed group of friends and closed-Grex community/speach pool of public opinion, but that is certainly not the case for the majority of members or the userbase are. And, if you take that personally, I'm sorry - but it clearly the truth.
mic, it would be helpful if you spoke for yourself, and did not pretend to be a spokesperson for the majority of members. No one has elected you to speak for the rest of us, nor have you made any attempt to elicit our opinions. I, frankly, don't appreciate your negative, immature style and think that, rather than providing leadership, you have heavily contributed to the divisive atmosphere here. Your "truth" is simply your opinion. I believe that cross has maintained a relatively level-headed response in discussion the problems with Grex, and has consistently tried to keep us focused on solving problems, rather than on personalities. The old way is not working. Cloistering ourselves for almost a year has simply lead to a faster decline of our community. Forbidding users from asking help questions because they don't have off-site priveleges is also a fast way to reach a dead end. I don't think that mary's sweeping generalizations about the proposed changes are helpful either. Some changes to the current situation have to be made. Not allowing new people to engage in our community is suicidal. Having an innactive staff, that cannot solve problems they have been working on for over a year is also suicidal. I'm hoping that cross's election to the BoD will provide some impetus for those changes. Perhaps I was wrong to withdraw from the election. I support thoughtful changes that allow us to grow as a community. I support cross as he endeavors to help the board and staff reach consensus on the methods we need to use to make those changes. I offer my talents to board and staff to try to get these changes made in a positive way. But changes have to be made. The current isolation is not healthy.
Could the board secretary find the time to contact staff members and give weekly reports on the progress of new user, email privileges, spam filter, and the like? And invite suggestions?
Let's get back on topic. What does staff need to get newuser working? Give us a list of "these would make the best approach and scenario" so we can offer solutions.
At this point, we need a way to move people from an unprivileged group to the privileged group. I *think* John Remmers is working on a script to that end. We also need people to review the requests to be granted outbound access to the Internet. I think we have several volunteers, but they may have thought that they were volunteering to grant outgoing e-mail access.
Clarification: outbound access is not simply for email, but for ftp, etc, etc? This is different from past practice. We currently require verified ID to grant outbound access to the internet. In the past, we did not require verified ID to send email outside the system.
Sorry, but I will not paint a pretty picture when I know how fucked things really are here. Call me immature - does not faze me.
Not quite. Traditionally and historically, we've allowed any one on grex to use DNS, finger, http, whois, gopher, talk and ntalk. Newuser was closed because someone was using even that limited access to attack our ISP.
Only members have had outgoing ftp and telnet, but everyone could use a browser and had incoming ftp and telnet and ssh.
Ok, next clarifying question: The proposal for non-techie volunteers to grant outbound access will still only allow email, DNS, finger, http, whois, gopher, talk, and ntalk. Verified ID will still be necessary for those wanting to use outbound ftp, telnet, and other traditionally "members only" privileges.
Right.
Thanks, I'll still volunteer then *grin*
Sindi reminds me of a former supervisor who would instruct us to call AT&T every 20 minutes when a leased line went down. He felt that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" and the more we complained the more of a priority we became. It had a negative effect. AT&T stopped escalating tickets after they figured out we were asking for that on every single call. Sindi, having the secretary contact staff on a weekly basis is not going to be constructive. You should tone down your demands for everyone else, we're talking about a lot of valuable time. I don't want staff to resent the time they put in here.
On the flip side, it would be nice to have some accountability and at least know what staff is up to and what they are not up to. Maybe there is a timeframe for reporting they'd agree to?
Staff put in time for staff work? Seriously, that very rarely happens -- and, nor has it in the last couple of years in fact. Whenever someone has a good idea (AND ACTUALLY WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE!) it is repelled from the stunningly-appearing-out-of-nowhere dynamic duo. I can't see Grex moving forward without there being a change in the mindset of the 'must run to Marcus/STeve for no ruffling feathers check'. I have said this before. The problems on Grex are NOT technically challenging. They are however political, and from this the only willing people (and motivated to fix the problems) are discouraged and chased away from doing so. I hope you can finally realise this, if you have not by now! I'm not the only former staff person who will tell you this. Some of them would not even log in here anymore, because of the poor way they have been treated.
I am resigning from Grex board and staff, effective immediately. Although I have been a staff member for over fifteen years and a board member for roughly half of those, the recent tenor of discussions in this conference have clarified for me that my heart is no longer in it and that I must take a break from Grex governance and staff responsibilities. My thanks to those who supported me in the recent board election, and apologies for any inconvenience my decision may cause. I do plan to continue as an active user and member of Grex. Article 4c of the bylaws provides for a special election to fill vacancies on the board. I presume that one of the first orders of business of the new board will be to schedule such an election.
Doesn't that make scholar your interim replacement since he came in fourth? ;)
Given that Remmers resigned after being re-elected, but days before the convening of the new board (and days before his old term on the board expired), but after the election, I propose that we avoid another special election and make scholar, who did come in 4th in the election, remmers's replacement on the next board.
I believe it was Steve that came in 4th place if you look again. And in either case, I do believe that a special election should occur.
I would prefer to have a new election. The board can still convene minus one member. Remmers, thanks for all your good work.
I am really sorry to see you go, remmers. But I can understand completely why you want to take a break. I am glad that you still plan to be active here.
Nate is Right; Steve came in 4th.
Thanks remmers.
Sorry to see you go, R E M M E R (S). (Perhaps you need thicker skin? j/k!)
D'oh!
Thanks for everything remmers. And feel free to keep posting on mnet no matter what others say.
I have to say that remmers is one of the people on here who I have a great deal of respect for and while I regret he is stepping down, I'm thankful for the service he has given thus far.
Thick/thin remmer's skin, he could be doing this nobly in the best interests of Grex. I'm willing to lend him that benefit-of-doubt. Hopefully, the dynamic duo will be looking at themselves seriously now also.
I think remmers got tired of your complaints.
Oh, I was not complaining, for the record. I was stating things as I and others I know saw them. I also tried not to get personal. In fact, it can be shown that I did not (initiate) attack (on) remmers personally. On the contrary, he was rather stabbing of my efforts to contribute technically, and even more so in the fact I unselfishly was determined to highlight the political quadmire that Grex has got itself into. What pissed me much more though, was his completely unreasonable appraisal of Dan. Hopefully the dynamic duo will be reading this (though, I doubt that very much - unless, of course, they have been tipped off) and have some decency in stepping down.
ouch - thankxx remmers for all the help over all those years. i'm sad to see you resign. be good or have fun.
thanks remmers ! be sure to keep entering crazy items on m-net with those subliminal messages dealing with your resignation or something
LOL! I find it funny that Sindi of all people would start the pointing fingers "he resigned because you complained too much" given her expectations of staff and the relentless complaints she has made of spam, etc.
Unintended humor is great.
Sindi is an ironic type of lady - got to love 'em :)
Sindi was not being ironic.
*giggles* :)
I'm really sorry to read about your resignations Remmers, but it's definitely understandable.
wow... I wish I would have read this before the Grexlunch today. John, thanks for the efforts over the years.
This is a defining moment in the history of Grex. If we can get some fresh, keen, enthusiastic blood on the board - and, especially staff, Grex may survive (BUT more importantly GROW). If the dynamic duo can realise they have the power to make a difference, they should also do the noble deed.
Would you please stop talking in cliches? Try saying what you said in half the words.
Sindi: I could try, however it's what comes naturally :) Afterall, how do you think I got a PhD? :P
I move that Dan (cross) and myself (spooked) be re-admitted to staff. I also move that no staffer can blazarringly revoke root privileges unless there is irrefutable intention from a staffer to harm Grex. If a staffer blazarringly revokes another staffer's root privileges, that staffer should be punished by removing his/her (the blazarringly revoking) root privileges and not being allowed back on staff for a minimum 12 month period.
I do not believe that spooked has demonstrated the attitudes and people skills that would make him a useful member of staff. I would be strongly against his re-admission.
Oh really :) Then how was my attitude, technical skills, and people skills never questioned in over 6 years when I was a staff member? And, how was no staff member against my recent request to be readmitted?
I like the bit in his proposal about PUNISHMENT. :)
Like I have said, Grex is at the cross-roads (pardon the pun) in its history. We need staff with the technical skills WILLING to get solutions for its members and users, instead of dividing its staff. The first motion I made undoubtedly assists this noble mission. The second motion protects the dynamic-like-duo-type who have clearly not been active or helpful in building a staff team who is solution-oriented IN THE PAST 2-3 YEARS. What shall Grex decide? It is your future!
I also move that no staffer can blazarringly revoke root privileges unless there is irrefutable intention from a staffer to harm Grex. If you're talking about non-staff in possession of root then I disagree. Why wouldn't someone be pro-active in protecting the system if they see a non-staff person doing stuff as root? I think the proper solution is a better change control process of which other staff are not to "interfere" once there has been an approval to proceed with the "improvement" (patching, updating, fixing, coding, etc.) The approval process for implementation shouldn't have to pass all staff but rather should meet some criteria and have a period where all staff have had a chance to voice concerns. Let's focus on this approval method and how it would work so all staff can participate without an 800 lb gorilla stepping in on a whim.
The crux of that episode was that it was vast overkill, rude, and no apology was given. Clearly STeve's actions were (in that instance, and other instances) counter-productive and team-divisive. As I have stated numerous times, I have no issues with STeve's technical capabilities - though, he does not apply them nearly as much as he once did. What frustrates (actually infruiates) me and many others, is he nazi style of 'leadership'. If Grex can afford to lose highly capable and participating staff members by the half dozen to dozen (as has happened in the last 2-3 years), then let us not change this 'leadership' example. Grex - the choice is yours.
re: 192: No, Tod - I am not talking about non-staff :) I am talking about staff blazarringly revoking staff!
"Blazarringly" must be something in Australian English which I have not encountered before. What I love is how Mic is shaping this up into the struggle between Good and Evil.
I will now go public; so far, I've restricted my comments to staff and board, which seemed to me sufficient. I object to mic and cross being re-admitted to staff. Mic, you've apparently not realised that the Board has not acted to restore your access because the active staff members don't want you on the staff. So I'll state it plainly: You are too abrasive to work effectively with the few of us who are left. Dan, your case is slightly different: You resigned from staff for, in my view, insufficient cause: A board member irritated you. I've been told that action was begun to get you back to work, but then you asked that it be stopped. You are, in my opinion, too likely to go off in a huff yet again.
I agree quite strongly with resp:188, and in a more childish fashion want to ask Mic why he is still here? I seem to remember reading at least one "FINE! I'm LEAVING! You're never going to hear from me again." posts. And even one "I've asked for my username to be deleted." To which I say "Dude, way to be mature."
I think you mean popcorn. :(
However excellent his technical credentials (of which I have no real knowledge), I would not support mic's request to be re-added to staff after his recent statements -- it's clear to me that he lacks (and doesn't even understand the need for) several key attributes. Technical people often make the mistake of thinking that technical skills are of paramount importance. I've been guilty in the past of making poor choices based on similar assumptions. But the reality of the situation is that when the job is bigger than a one-man job, other attributes become more important -- much more important, actually. Grex's technology needs, frankly, are fairly modest. What we really need on staff are people with good judgment and people who can work well with other people as part of a team. (That's one reason why I'm saddened to see John Remmers resign from staff.) It's also important, I think, for the staff person to be stable, credible, and respected by the Grex community. I know that it will offend mic to hear this, and I suspect (based on his reaction to other recent developments) that he's probably going to take it very personally and hold a grudge for a very long time, but I think it would be a dreadfully bad idea to restore his staff privileges, NOT because of the incident with giving cross root, but because of the behavior he's show SINCE then, which has been notably lacking in the attributes we want in a staffer -- calm good judgment, ability to get along as part of a team, credibility, stability, and respect.
re: 196 I think Dan's willingness to make a commitment to being a board member is worth something. I'd like to see Dan on staff again. He seems to have recognized that his "thin-skin" responses need to be modulated, and he seems to be willing to work on that.
I'm not offended in the least actually. It is clear that Grex does not want to address the real issues. I have tried, unselfishly, to highlight them. I was not sticking around for personal reasons - I have zilch to gain from being a Grex staffer (a fact seemingly lost on many). Good luck 'working' with STeve, Marcus, and the dynamic-duo arse-patting crew. You had a choice to move forward - unfortunately you chose to stay with the past. And, that's your choice. It is sad, but it is one I thought you were - as a group - non-visionary enough to make. I lose nothing, and you stick with your cuddly status-quo --- the wonderful Grex community of non-striving folk.
FWIW, I also think that cross's willingness to be on the board is something that should be considered.
Let's see if he completes his term, eh?
Sweep the truth under the carpet... the nice persian carpet.
Regarding #196; Fair enough. Regarding #203; I plan on it; the only question is whether I get deployed or reactivated. If that happens, then all bets are off. But honestly, that's not up to me. :-)
re #201: > I'm not offended in the least actually. Good, if true. Hold onto that thought, as I've got more to say.. > It is clear that Grex does not want to address the real issues. I have > tried, unselfishly, to highlight them. I was not sticking around for > personal reasons - I have zilch to gain from being a Grex staffer (a fact > seemingly lost on many). > > Good luck 'working' with STeve, Marcus, and the dynamic-duo arse-patting > crew. > > You had a choice to move forward - unfortunately you chose to stay with > the past. And, that's your choice. It is sad, but it is one I thought > you were - as a group - non-visionary enough to make. One of the reasons I really wish you'd shut up about this is that I happen to agree with you to a limited extent -- I think Grex has a problem with its staff culture and now is the time to start doing something about it. I'd like to actually have a serious conversation about this, but you're a one-man wrecking crew for your own position -- the way you're going about arguing in favor of reform is probably the most effective way to ensure that nobody takes the reform position seriously.
I take it seriously regardless of spooked's venting. I'm sure most others don't based on their responses, though. People are fixated on personalities and individuals rather than coming up with a fair process for future would-be staff volunteers. I'm trying to ignore all the psychoanalyzing everyone is enjoying only because I think everyone is repeating themselves mostly. Well, I don't think Mike is repeating himself. He's like E.F.Hutton.
I've got to agree with Todd here.
Sorry, I like to make myself heard - especially because I know I speak the truth. I will shut up, because as I said I have nothing to gain from being on staff. I was sacrificing myself for the good of Grex, and I hope for its sake it wakes up to itself.
resp:209 Mic, you make a really crappy Martyr.
Todd, "most others" who do take it seriously may be behaving like me: trying to stay out the fray until mic finishes venting.
*giggles* I'm not the perfect kitten, Anne - but I try ;)
resp:212 please, kittens have charm going for them...
They sound great. Give me a sack of em.
*giggles* I can charm, Annie -- it does depend who and when I feel like it, though ;)
jadecat he thinks you're flirting with him.
cmcgee: you're a psychoanalysing toss
Bad kitty
*purrs*
resp:216 Eww.
I think Anne knows I'm being sarcastic, and am not flirting with her :)
Now that I have finished venting, does Grex realise that clearly things are broken - and, thus, change (for improvement) is necessary?
What were you saying is broken?
the record :(
Re 223: My solid belief in Grex, I guess - and, why, it is not worth fighting for?
re #225 Everybody has their threshold. I don't take it so seriously. Compared to all the important things in my life..Grex is right down there with "Make sure to set the VCR for 24 and Grey's Anatomy" and "vacuum the car"
This response has been erased.
I tend to think actions speak way louder than words and where we spend our time says a lot about what (and who) we value.
I'm not sure what login spooked used to use, but the style doesn't seem familiar. Regardless of that, sppoked says that he wants to make sure he's heard, but is counterproductive of that to the extreme with the way he carries on.
No comment.
What login I used to use? Dude, I have been spooked for 5+ years.
re #228 I sort of agree but it also matters what you do during the time you're spending somewhere. Truly, I value my bedtime and driving time if yours is the only case.
I value my bedtime, for sure. And if I had a long commute it would mean I valued the job (or the income) that made the commute necessary. Being on Grex is not necessary. So when someone is checking in every few minutes and posting responses all day long, that gives me a hint that maybe they are getting something out of it.
Re #233: or in my case, the medical insurance.
Isn't that the truth.
For some, the long commute is not optional. My partner works half an hour north of us, I go to school 45 minutes southwest of us and work half an hour due south. There is no place that would be convenient, and we've been in this apartment since before either of us had our current jobs and before I was accepted into school on the other side of the metroplex.
You have several choices: