response 1 of 88:

Nov 8 02:52 UTC 2005

"Upstairs"?  Interesting tidbit.

response 3 of 88:

Nov 8 03:49 UTC 2005

If he chooses to step down, who will replace him? 

Maybe we should just give him a pay cut. *snort*

response 5 of 88:

Nov 8 04:21 UTC 2005

 re #3:  I think that might be going a little too far.  Perhaps we
 should just cancel that big promotion he's been expecting.

 re #2:  seriously, though, unless it's a totally unsuccessful attempt
 at a joke your comment suggests a fundamental misunderstanding
 about the nature of Grex's relationship with its sysadmins.  We've
 been coasting on volunteer labor and emergency favors from an
 ever-shrinking pool of talent for a long time now.  You are correct
 that STeve isn't supporting the system at this time but we never
 had any right to expect that he would.  Scapegoat him for the system's
 problems if you want to (though it would be classier not to show such
 remarkable ingratitude for the work he contributed to the system before
 mounting work, family, and medical pressures led him to cut back)
 but unless you've got another sysadmin waiting in the wings it won't
 solve any of Grex's problems.

response 9 of 88:

Nov 8 17:42 UTC 2005

Non-sysadmins have been rescuing grex when it crashes (remmers and gelinas
and maybe others).  I don't see that it matters who has what title.

response 11 of 88:

Nov 8 22:53 UTC 2005

Maybe Grex should? Since titles are the only "pay" our staff get
anyways, why not make them formal?

response 13 of 88:

Nov 9 00:13 UTC 2005

re #10
Perhaps that is the problem with all the downtime? i.e. no sense of
ownership/responsibility from tech volunteers

Dan Cross brings up a very valid point: Ultimately, someone is making the big
technical decisions.  Someone on the tech staff needs to be present for these
board meetings in order to provide a status and bridge for any gaps.  I think
the tech volunteers should informally agree with 100% concensus which of them
is prepared to be the monthly meeting liason as well as "go to" during the
downtimes.  

response 15 of 88:

Nov 9 02:47 UTC 2005

Staff members do attend the BoD meetings and do report on the status, etc.

response 17 of 88:

Nov 9 06:05 UTC 2005

I spent about half a minute trying to come up with some way to make Eric look
like a buffoon in this reply, and I couldn't think of anything, but I think
this response will do just fine.

response 19 of 88:

Nov 9 21:35 UTC 2005

Personally, I think that Steve's reputation is overblown, but that's me.
I do think it's fair to say that he's highly biased and has an unrealistic
view of grex and how this system is actually used.  I think that technical
decisions based on those biases have adversely affected grex and made it
difficult to maintain.

The decision to go with OpenBSD was primary based on the opinions of two
staff members, and steam-rolled through by those two people, whom everyone
else deferred to.  Neither of them is particularly active on grex anymore.
In retrospect, it seems pretty obvious that OpenBSD was a mistake.  Steve
doesn't seem to see how OpenBSD just isn't right for grex, even after all
this time.  I find that disturbing, and it leads me to question his
credibility.

Even the best people sometimes make mistakes due to personal bias, etc.
Continuing to defer to them based on their previous performance is just
folly; every major decision here is worthy of debate and justification.
In the past, people have been upset when staff has been asked to justify
their decisions, as if that would drive grex's volunteer staff to move on.
I fail to see why this is a problem; if someone's truly got a good idea,
it won't be hard for them to justify it, will it?  If not, then a healthy
debate will prevent it from getting implemented.  After all, most of staff
consists of gearheads who like to talk about this stuff, and may enjoy the
process of justifying their decision (I do, which is why I sometimes seem
so contenscious).  If they don't want to justify their decision, then ask
why that is?  If they're so if thin-skinned, perhaps they're not cut out
for the abusive environment of grex.  If they're just making a decision
out of bias with no real justification or balanced consideration of the
alternatives, I'd rather that be exposed.  In any case, do you *really*
want that person making a decision largely unchallenged?

Note, lest I seem to be unfairly picking on Steve; I don't think that he's
the only person who should be challenged on his ideas.  Every major grex
decision should be debated.  Hey, isn't that what this place is supposed
to be all about?

response 21 of 88:

Nov 9 22:34 UTC 2005

Remind me again, Dan, what you've done for Grex?

response 23 of 88:

Nov 9 23:08 UTC 2005

re resp:21: I think that's more than a bit unfair.  Dan has nearly 
tirelessly advocated for a different direction on the operating 
system.  It is clear he has time to spend on Grex, and has both ability 
and willingness to contribute.  He is also here.  STeve is not.

I don't agree with bashing STeve.  He has contributed huge amounts of 
effort and ability to Grex.  I am as sure as I can be that he's as 
frustrated that he can't do so now, as all of the rest of us combined.  
I don't know what's going on in his life but I hope things are getting 
better for him.  It would be a secondary bonus to see him return to 
Grex.

I don't agree with bashing Dan, either, or dismissing what he has to 
say.  His comments over the years have been unvaryingly constructive 
from what I have seen.  What does someone have to do in order to be 
perceived as a positive contributor to Grex, short of being a founder 
of the system?  That is unattainable for most.