|
Grex > Coop11 > #52: The Destination, and the On-Ramp | |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
The Destination, and the On-Ramp
| 
Dec 4 19:45 UTC 1998 |
Grex has two missions. One is its community-building mission,
which manifests itself in the conferences, and to a lesser
degree in party. And the other is to enable free/low-cost access to the
world of computing and networks; Grex does this with telnet, lynx,
e-mail, and shell programming access. (I just looked at the
articles of incorporation in item:1 ; only the community-building
stuff is explicitly mentioned.)
You can also think of these as Grex's role as a destination on the
Internet, and as an on-ramp to the Internet.
What we have seen with the rise of the Internet -- especially the
growth of the Internet to the entire world -- is that the demand
for our on-ramp services is potentially unlimited.
Grex's resources, however, are not unlimited. We have limited staff
time; we have limited network bandwidth; we have a limited number of
UIDs.
I propose that Grex's mission now calls for us to begin to prepare budgets
for our destination services, and our on-ramp services, and to
consciously allocate resources between them so that our destination
services -- the computer conferencing described in our charter --
does not get squeezed out.
-----
The final crystallization for this was a response in the item about
opening up outbound telnet to verified users. There was concern expressed:
if we opened up outbound IRC to verified users, we could be swamped.
Well? If there is a tremendous need for free IRC, should we not be
trying to meet it? But we should be able to offer a limited amount
of it: we should be able to make such offerings without threatening
our community-building mission.
-----
I'd especially like to hear responses from Board candidates.
|
| 24 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 24:
|
Dec 4 21:37 UTC 1998 |
I like the definitions of destination and on ramp services.
I think that ultimately, we're going to have to come to reality that
we can't be all things to everyone, now that everyone really does mean
"everyone", or is coming closer and closer to that.
The Grexian philosophy as I've always seen it has been to offer as
many different things as we can, that are useful to people or educational.
To the extent that we can offer SunOS things (tools, compilers, etc) we
have. To the extend that we can offer access to the net, I think we have
in that we've always given out email, and once we were on the net we gave
out lynx access. What we haven't given out has been small compared to
what we have.
The only problem is that vast VAST numbers of people now use Grex,
far more than most of us ever thought there might be. We have been able
to accomodate an impressive number of people who do a diverse number of
things, but that diversity has put some strain on Grex, and:
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 24:
|
Dec 5 05:20 UTC 1998 |
(and? Finish that response this minute, Mr. Andre'!)
|
steve
|
|
response 3 of 24:
|
Dec 5 05:40 UTC 1998 |
ARG!
Thenet connection at Kedzie died when I was writing that; I
didn't think it would be entered. Blast! I'll do that again
probably tomororw. Working on the blocking issue at the moment.
|
dpc
|
|
response 4 of 24:
|
Dec 5 20:10 UTC 1998 |
I think krj's idea is an excellent one. It seems to me that only
a tiny percentage of our users are here for our "destination" services.
I would like to see that percentage increase. Our "on-ramp"
services do seem to be swamping our "destination" services at present.
|
janc
|
|
response 5 of 24:
|
Dec 6 19:31 UTC 1998 |
I don't think we are swamped at the moment.
Long term, Grex's future is as a destination. On-ramps will become too
common. Already our on-ramp services seem more in demand for other
parts of the world than for the Ann Arbor community.
Figuring out what kinds of things would make Grex a better on-ramp isn't
hard. Lots of possibilities come to mind. Figuring out how to get the
resources to carry those out is much more difficult.
Figuring out what kinds of things would make Grex a better destination
is very hard. I can't think of a single good idea right now. Backtalk
and webnewuser helped, I think. Webparty? Pay Kenneth Starr a
speaker's fee to participate in a special conference on Grex for a
month?
That's where I have a problem with the idea of separately allocating
resources to these two faces of the system. How are we going to utilize
those "destination" resources? To me, the main virtue of the plan is
that it would force us to try harder to think of ways to make Grex a
better destination, something that I don't think we've been doing very
much of for a while now.
|
steve
|
|
response 6 of 24:
|
Dec 6 19:34 UTC 1998 |
I agree that we aren't swamped. I'll try to finish my #1 tonight.
|
srw
|
|
response 7 of 24:
|
Dec 6 21:04 UTC 1998 |
While I agree that long term we are a destination, I believe that for
the foreseeable future we also need to continue serving as a limited
free on-ramp for local users.
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 24:
|
Dec 9 06:35 UTC 1998 |
there are two distinct approaches taken to the use of our on-ramp services,
each with its own character. one is the low-tech person just joining the
computer age, mostly local, to whom Grex is an inexpensive or free way to
explore the potential of this "new" medium. the other is the (usually east
Asian or Indian) user to whom Grex is a means by which to have access to
services otherwise prohibited by the employer or goverment which supplies the
hardware.
i don't necessarily think that we need make a policy which distinguishes twixt
these, but certainly the process needs to be informed of them. they have very
different impacts, not only on the users, but in terms of grant applications
and other ways we present and describe ourselves and our function to the world
at large.
now, i don't think there are any concerns about the low-tech newbies or the
destination type usage becoming the behemoth that swallows Grex's resources.
that means that the surreptitious, and possibly illicit, user base becomes
our focus. there are two major ways (along with many minor, in my opinion)
in which we can view this group. one is that we are fostering free access
to information in places in which lesser degrees of respect for human rights
might disallow it, which puts Grex in a position of massive potential
responsibility, not to mention some possible controversy. the other is that
we are being used, and our resources are being drained (abused?) by people
who have no concept of what we are and why we exist, and who give very little,
if anything, to help us supply their needs as well as the needs of others.
how we choose to view the ways in which our services are used will have major
impact on any policy stance we take about the allocation of our resources.
personally, i don't know how Grex could survive it if attempts to provide
expensive additional resources which will be taken up by an insatiable demand,
but which generates very little return of support for our costs in providing
those resources. i do not want to advocate eliminating service, or even
limiting it more than it is, but i do think it would be prudent for us to not
be in such a hurry to grow and expand. i think we should bide our time, and
let our growth be precipitated not by demand for greater *quantity* of
service, but by degradation in *quality* of service.
to restate, if we can continue to serve our existing user base at an
acceptable level, i think we should refrain from spending more money on
bandwidth and uid space growth until we have enough money in the bank to
be able to make those purchases without having to worry about compromising
our stability if we have a few months of shortfall.
|
rtg
|
|
response 9 of 24:
|
Dec 11 05:12 UTC 1998 |
see item:coop11,49,51
Essentially, I see 'community building' as local resources here on grex
that we can make available to the users worldwide for education and
interpersonal communication purposes. I see 'on-ramp' for those local Ann
Arbor users who cannot afford the $10/month for a PPP account, or more
likely, the $500 to build a computer capable of running an IP stack.
I see providing a gateway for users out on the internet, to go surfing (or
attacking) other sites on the internet, as clearly outside of our mission.
Let incoming telnet users use all of our local services, period.
Let local dialin users have access to the maximum internet port bandwidth
that we can afford. Via whatever protocols we can support.
Let the question of who is supporting us with $ not come into the
equation.
|
fungster
|
|
response 10 of 24:
|
Dec 13 08:33 UTC 1998 |
Steve, your #1 please? We're still hanging.
|
steve
|
|
response 11 of 24:
|
Dec 14 04:12 UTC 1998 |
OK, here is the complete version of #1.
I like the definitions of destination and on ramp services.
I think that ultimately, we're going to have to come to reality that
we can't be all things to everyone, now that everyone really does mean
"everyone", or is coming closer and closer to that.
The Grexian philosophy as I've always seen it has been to offer as
many different things as we can, that are useful to people or educational.
To the extent that we can offer SunOS things (tools, compilers, etc) we
have. To the extend that we can offer access to the net, I think we have
in that we've always given out email, and once we were on the net we gave
out lynx access. What we haven't given out has been small compared to
what we have.
The only "problem" is that vast VAST numbers of people now use Grex,
far more than most of us ever thought there might be. We have been able
to accomodate an impressive number of people who do a diverse number of
things, but that diversity has put some strain on Grex, and we're going
to have to be inventive to come up with ways to continue to offer the
services we have to an ever increasing number of people. I think this
can be done however, and our openness can continue. Creativity and the
continued sense that we are doing the right thing is something we should
never let go of.
Technology is going to alter the ways people do things, such that
the on ramp items we offer will be less important, letting us concentrate
on our being a destination. As the net expands into new places we'll be
seeing new users, but also access to services like email will increase,
so the nature of the usage of Grex will change, I predict. Compared to
other parts of the net, our email limitations are likely to move that
kind of user elsewhere, and let us concentrate on the on ramp things we
do better.
|
dpc
|
|
response 12 of 24:
|
Dec 18 00:16 UTC 1998 |
I agree with other. I'm concerned about the *huge* percentage of Grex
users who are illicit, surreptitious folks. Do we really want Grex
to be largely a haven for pirates?
|
steve
|
|
response 13 of 24:
|
Dec 18 00:25 UTC 1998 |
Why do you think there is a "huge" percentage of illicit or
surreptitious people who use Grex?
No, we don't want Grex to be a haven for vandals, which is why we have
the kernel blocks in place. That prevents *most* possible vandal activity
that someone can do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 14 of 24:
|
Dec 18 12:49 UTC 1998 |
I would also raise the question: Illicit from whose perspective?
|
dpc
|
|
response 15 of 24:
|
Dec 19 17:34 UTC 1998 |
"Illicit" from the perspective of the institutions furnishing the access
allowing those folks to reach Grex. Apparently, "illicit" includes
the majority of our Indian users.
And I didn't say "vandals", I said "pirates".
|
steve
|
|
response 16 of 24:
|
Dec 19 18:10 UTC 1998 |
Dave, when dealing with the net, the phrase "apparently" is an
extremely dubious concept. We can't know the motives of our users.
To think differently is simply false.
I've been dealing with users, problems, security issues and a host
of other things net related since Janurary 1994, and *I* have no real
idea if the various Indian users access to Grex is "illicit" or not.
However, given the vast flow into Grex, I suspect not: if it were, I
would think that the various system administrators of those sites
would notice this, and shut it down.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 24:
|
Dec 19 19:36 UTC 1998 |
As I see it, Grex has an organization has an obligation to conform to
the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is located (e.g. U.S.,
Michigan, Ann Arbor). Beyond that, I don't see it as our responsibility
to enforce the access rules of company X or country Y. That's X's and
Y's responsibility. To take just one hypothetical example, I would take
a dim view of a demand from a government that we block certain sites
that their citizens were using to get access to Grex because such access
is illegal under that government's law, even though those folks are
"pirates" from that government's perspective.
|
steve
|
|
response 18 of 24:
|
Dec 19 19:51 UTC 1998 |
I'd take such a dim view of that kind of attempt that I'd disregard
it completely.
|
tsty
|
|
response 19 of 24:
|
Dec 26 11:14 UTC 1998 |
re #17, #18 .... welllll, that structure is teh us gooberment's stance
for the war on drugs!! it is wonderfully fascinating (??perverse??) that
two such high-powered intellects take opposite stances on the structure
of gooberment over-reach
or, isolationism ...whichever.
|
mta
|
|
response 20 of 24:
|
Dec 26 15:25 UTC 1998 |
I think one of us read that wrong, TS. I thought John and Steve were in
agreement, more or less.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 24:
|
Dec 26 16:04 UTC 1998 |
I thought we were too.
|
steve
|
|
response 22 of 24:
|
Dec 26 16:40 UTC 1998 |
So did I.
|
tsty
|
|
response 23 of 24:
|
Dec 31 23:37 UTC 1998 |
hmmmm, on second read it does seem that i misread/misenterpreted the
content in #17 & #18 .... i appreiate the pointers and type corrected.
my mistake - sorry.
what i misread was 'which dim view of which dim demand was the object of
which enlightened response.'
if i take it correctly, we/grex would be summarioly uncooperative were
some 'over there' to ask/request/damend that we do their censoring for them.
'censor' here to mean 'refuse access' and keep the 'over there' ppl off grex.
if i have more accurately (and inother words) described #'s 17 & 18 ...
then add my aggreement to each.
|
remmers
|
|
response 24 of 24:
|
Jan 1 15:56 UTC 1999 |
Quite right. What I meant in resp:17 is that Grex shouldn't do other
people's censoring for them.
|