|
Grex > Coop13 > #205: Member proposal to not use Picospan on NextGrex | |
|
| Author |
Message |
albaugh
|
|
Member proposal to not use Picospan on NextGrex
| 
Oct 19 19:18 UTC 2004 |
With no great particular pleasure, but in hopes that it might make for a
"better" or "more efficient" NextGrex, this particular member proposal is put
forth:
Picospan will be neither ported to nor supported on (nor even allowed to run
on, if necessary) NextGrex (OpenBSD). Fronttalk will be used instead.
When possible, an as-close-to-Picospan interface to Fronttalk can be provided,
if users so desired.
Discuss, suggest wordsmithing, etc. Also note that in order for this proposal
to be brought to a vote at the appointed time, it must receive "support" from
at least 10% of the members.
|
| 105 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 105:
|
Oct 19 20:17 UTC 2004 |
I support this proposal, with some sadness, since Picospan is such a
wonderful program, and has really allowed Grex to become a community.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 2 of 105:
|
Oct 19 20:20 UTC 2004 |
So, if this proposal fails, does that mean staff is compelled to make it
work, or what?
|
aruba
|
|
response 3 of 105:
|
Oct 19 20:41 UTC 2004 |
No. The failure of a proposal doesn't imply anything.
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 105:
|
Oct 19 20:48 UTC 2004 |
The phrase "as-close-to-Picospan interface to Fronttalk" doesn't make
sense -- Fronttalk *is* a Picospan-like interface, by definition. What
it's an interface to is Backtalk.
If I remember what Jan said elsewhere, Picospan has already been installed
on NextGrex, so the first point of the proposal is moot.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 105:
|
Oct 19 21:12 UTC 2004 |
As I said elsewhere, I think a vote on this issue is premature. I'm also
a little uncomfortable on principle with dictating the use (or non-use)
of particular named software products via member vote. It smacks of
micromanagement. I'd prefer to trust the staff to (1) be on top of the
technical issues, and (2) maintain open dialog in this conference and
be sensitive to what the users (not just the members) want.
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 105:
|
Oct 19 21:17 UTC 2004 |
That said, I think I could support a proposal stating that it's the
sense of the membership that Grex should continue to support a
Picospan-like text-based conferencing interface and that the supported
conferencing software should be open-source.
(Three responses in a row from me, so I'll shut up now.)
|
mfp
|
|
response 7 of 105:
|
Oct 19 21:36 UTC 2004 |
Slip.
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 105:
|
Oct 19 23:47 UTC 2004 |
I'm with remmers on this.
I'd endorse a proposal to move NextGrex to open source software wherever
technically feasible, unless users provide compelling reasons why the
proprietary software should continue to be supported.
In those cases, I'd support a decision to do whatever the staff feel is
best within the limitations of their willingness and ability to support
it.
|
mfp
|
|
response 9 of 105:
|
Oct 20 05:40 UTC 2004 |
That's not what remmers supports. You're not with him.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 10 of 105:
|
Oct 20 17:34 UTC 2004 |
I guess what I don't like is for years to have heard "that's the way Picospan
works, and we can't change Picospan". I will post a modified proposal.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 11 of 105:
|
Oct 20 17:37 UTC 2004 |
"Picospan will not be used/supported as the text-based conferencing software
on NextGrex (OpenBSD). Fronttalk will be used instead, already having the
functionality and "look and feel" of Picospan, but also with the ability to
be extended to provide new functionality in the future."
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 105:
|
Oct 20 17:41 UTC 2004 |
I can't support that one, for the reasons stated above.
|
gregb
|
|
response 13 of 105:
|
Oct 20 17:50 UTC 2004 |
Open Source: Yea!
Propriatory: Nah!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 14 of 105:
|
Oct 20 18:01 UTC 2004 |
aruba/remmers: What is the magic number these days required to allow this
to come to a vote?
|
mary
|
|
response 15 of 105:
|
Oct 20 18:11 UTC 2004 |
Kevin, why are you rushing people to vote for something before they
have even had the chance to see it in action? Back off, let's see
how New Grex works as Jan sets it up, and go from there.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 16 of 105:
|
Oct 20 18:37 UTC 2004 |
It sounds like janc is putting a lot of work into NextGrex right at the
moment, and deciding this may (or may not) help. I asked, didn't seem to make
a difference. *You* back off. You don't like the proposal, now or later,
don't vote for it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 105:
|
Oct 20 19:34 UTC 2004 |
The rule is that for a proposal to come to a vote, 10% of the membership
must (in this item) endorse bringing it to a vote. The proposal expires
if the necessary endorsements are not retained within 30 days.
According to the !members command, there are 70 current members, so the
magic number of endorsements is 7. I'm not sure if the !members command
reflects all recent changes in membership, so Mark should supply the
authoratative figure.
The minimum time frame for member proposals is: minimum of two weeks
for discussion, followed by voting over a ten-day period. Hence the
earliest this could be decided is a bit over three weeks from now.
|
remmers
|
|
response 18 of 105:
|
Oct 20 19:36 UTC 2004 |
(That should be "obtained", not "retained", in the third line above.)
|
scott
|
|
response 19 of 105:
|
Oct 20 20:10 UTC 2004 |
I think it's an interesting proposal, certainly not a nuisance proposal. I
probably won't vote for it... but I will endorse bringing it to a vote.
|
aruba
|
|
response 20 of 105:
|
Oct 20 23:11 UTC 2004 |
The members group is up to date.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 21 of 105:
|
Oct 21 01:44 UTC 2004 |
Froom what I've heard from Jan, we are likely to be on the new machine
before this comes to a vote.
I would like to see us move from picospan, much as I like it. I'm not
sure this proposal is the way to accomplish that transition, but I prefer
this proposal to one requiring picospan.
I am not ready to formally endorse this proposal.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 22 of 105:
|
Oct 21 02:09 UTC 2004 |
For technical and support reasons I prefer front talk become the primary,
officially-supported conferencing technology and I am somewhat sympathetic
to what I believe is Kevin's intent in proposing this
That said, I do not support this proposal. The implied premise that
picospan has been the roadblock to nextgrex going live has nothing
to do with reality. It was the other 99.9999% of the systems work,
lack of staff time and motivation that have been the principal factors
hampering progress.
I also think it unnecessary legislate that a picospan like interface be
provided when it already exists in front talk (along with a web interface
and perhaps in future, others such as rss). What urgent problem are we
trying to address by "requiring" a state affairs that aleady exists?
I also don't like the precident of legislating specific technical
implementations to staff which to my mind should be a determined on the
basis of technical merit and/or support costs.
To my knowledge we have limited formal policies about technology to
those that have a direct, negative legal, economic or security impact
on the system. Beyond these specific areas, we avoid creating too
many rules that might otherwise interfere with our educational mission
encouraging grex to be a place where folks can learn and play with unix
and programming. Specifically forbidding picospan or down the line some
other alternative interface to the conferencing system for no particularly
good reason goes against the spirit of that mission.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 23 of 105:
|
Oct 21 02:10 UTC 2004 |
(Joe slipped-in...)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 24 of 105:
|
Oct 21 05:44 UTC 2004 |
Ah, but this is not strictly about technology, as you well know, so please
don't trot out any slippery slope notions. This is not an ignorant member
trying to decide by vote OpenBSD versus Linux. This is a clear case of a
primary piece of software which is the window into what is supposed to be core
to grex's mission, conferencing in support of a cyber community. And we have
a situation where one version of the software that enables conferencing is
stagnant, trapped in time, never to emerge (Picospan). NextGrex may be the
perfect opportunity (or may not) to formally go in another direction, since
there is an available equivalent alternative.
I didn't dream up this notion, or have it come to me serendipitously.
janc's notes about his work on NextGrex brought this issue into clear light
at this time.
|