|
Grex > Coop13 > #354: Member initative: Free memberships for staffers | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scholar
|
|
Member initative: Free memberships for staffers
| 
Sep 1 19:33 UTC 2006 |
I am a member in good standing, and this is a member inititative.
I propose that we grant all official staff members free memberships in
Cyberspace, Inc. for as long as they hold their positions.
Again, we'll need six people to endorse this proposal before we can vote on
it.
I, of course, endorse.
|
| 42 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 1 of 42:
|
Sep 1 19:35 UTC 2006 |
My reasoning here is that there shouldn't be people who work as hard as staff
does and yet don't have memberships.
There's currently at least one staff member in that position.
|
naftee
|
|
response 2 of 42:
|
Sep 1 19:39 UTC 2006 |
i vote yez
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 42:
|
Sep 1 19:44 UTC 2006 |
As "at least one staff" person who is not a member -- I suggest that
it's unnecessary to confer automatic memberships on staff and in some
circumstances may actually be helpful to have staff people whose regular
logins are not members in the staff group, as it makes it possible for
them to spot file permission problems that might not be obvious to those
with greater permission group membership.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 4 of 42:
|
Sep 1 19:50 UTC 2006 |
I think staff can create pseudos and decide which are the members and
which aren't. That way they can vote in elections and hold office if
they wish.
|
scholar
|
|
response 5 of 42:
|
Sep 1 19:57 UTC 2006 |
Re. 3: Perhaps we could make it the decision of the staffer whether they get
a membership, and as nharmon suggests, which account of theirs gets it.
The new wording of the proposal is as follows: All staff members of Grex may,
at their option, be granted a free membership in Cyberspace, Inc. for as long
as they remain on staff. Any staff member receiving a free membership may
choose which of their accounts the membership belongs to.
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 42:
|
Sep 1 21:36 UTC 2006 |
I 2nd scholar's proposal
|
nharmon
|
|
response 7 of 42:
|
Sep 1 21:50 UTC 2006 |
I am not a member, can I endorse scholar's proposal? If I can, I do.
|
scholar
|
|
response 8 of 42:
|
Sep 1 22:59 UTC 2006 |
Only endorsements from members count toward the total needed to vote.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 9 of 42:
|
Sep 2 00:13 UTC 2006 |
I'm not sure how I'd vote on the proposal, but I think it ought to go to a
member vote.
|
spooked
|
|
response 10 of 42:
|
Sep 2 02:32 UTC 2006 |
Being one such staff member, there is not a lot that I can't do now that I
would like to do from Grex given I was a member.
|
aruba
|
|
response 11 of 42:
|
Sep 2 23:33 UTC 2006 |
If I thought this would get us more, or more active, staff members, I'd be
for it. But the point of having members pay dues, is that Grex needs
money to pay its bills to keep running. Giving out free memberships
reduces that income.
But it's true that our scarcest resource at the moment is staff
committment. Is there anyone out there who would commit more time to Grex
staff work if Grex gave them a complimentary membership in return?
One problem that would need to be worked out, to implement this proposal,
is to delimit the time when people are "on staff". As it is, people tend
to be officially "on staff", in the sense of having root access, long
after they stop actively doing things on Grex.
|
scholar
|
|
response 12 of 42:
|
Sep 3 05:17 UTC 2006 |
I've considered those problems, but I really don't think they'd have much of
an effect on Cyberspace's income; people are on staff because they care about
Grex. In my estimation, if this proposal passes, it won't be used to 'stiff'
Grex, but will be a decent thing to do in return for the work staff does for
us -- regardless of whether or not it results in increased work or not.
|
spooked
|
|
response 13 of 42:
|
Sep 3 11:18 UTC 2006 |
If Grex moved to a more modern, flexible operating system you may see
more staff members interested. There are no guarantees, however!
The fact that OpenBSD was pushed for its 'security hardness' has strained
the interest of at least a few current and former staff members. And,
given that, we have seen it has hardly proven a fortress either! Being
a security expert, I can tell you for a fact that most security issues
are the result of poor configuration and lack of diligent
maintenance/monitoring --- something we have been lacking. OpenBSD (and
its push by a couple of former/current staff memebers) has lost not only
the interest of others in terms of participation, but also limited our
software base and chance of modernisation.
|
remmers
|
|
response 14 of 42:
|
Sep 3 16:40 UTC 2006 |
<remmers dons his voteadm hat>
Since this is an official proposal item, I direct your attention to
Article 5 of the bylaws, posted at
http://cyberspace.org/local/grex/bylaws.html .
(Note: The version of the bylaws in item 2 of this conference is not
up-to-date with respect to voting procedures.)
The rules are: There's a discussion period of at least two weeks. At
least 10% of the membership must endorse bringing the proposal to a vote
by so indicating in this item. After two weeks, but not more than 30
days, have elapsed, the proposer may post a final wording of the
proposal. Members have 48 hours thereafter to add or withdraw
endorsements. If the proposal has the necessary number of endorsements
48 hours after the author posts a final wording and requests a vote, it
goes to an online vote via secret ballot.
If the author doesn't request a vote or the necessary number of
endorsements isn't obtained within 30 days of the posting of this item,
the proposal lapses and is not eligible to be voted on.
This proposal item was posted on September 1, so discussion extends at
least through September 14 and will either come to a vote or lapse no
later than September 30.
Assuming that the online member list is up to date, there are 53
members; hence 6 member endorsements are required to bring this to a
vote. I count 3 so far: scholar, tod, kingjon.
<remmers removes voteadm hat>
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 42:
|
Sep 3 17:11 UTC 2006 |
Re #13: That is an absurd statement. Please start a new item in Garage
or coop, detailing your reasons giving your thoughts. I want to hear them
in detail.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 42:
|
Sep 3 20:02 UTC 2006 |
Why is it absurd? It's been discussed numerous times, Steve.
|
naftee
|
|
response 17 of 42:
|
Sep 4 01:47 UTC 2006 |
re 15 Thank you for that blanket statement, steVE. Really.
|
steve
|
|
response 18 of 42:
|
Sep 4 04:13 UTC 2006 |
It's being "discussed" doesn't alter the fact that its absurd Dan. But
I'd like to have an item where the anti-OpenBSD philosophy side of things
can be explained. Starting with that it isn't "modern"... However, that
all I want to say here about it. I'm hoping Mic creates an item soon.
|
spooked
|
|
response 19 of 42:
|
Sep 4 12:43 UTC 2006 |
You will be hoping for a long time.
|
steve
|
|
response 20 of 42:
|
Sep 4 14:06 UTC 2006 |
Well thats nice.
|
naftee
|
|
response 21 of 42:
|
Sep 4 15:59 UTC 2006 |
Who's Mic?
|
cross
|
|
response 22 of 42:
|
Sep 4 22:15 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #18; That you say it's absurd doesn't make it so. And don't
misconstrue the idea that OpenBSD isn't appropriate for grex as an
"anti-OpenBSD philosophy." You have a tendancy to take technical
disagreements as some sort of personal attack when they aren't, and I really
don't understand why.
|
steve
|
|
response 23 of 42:
|
Sep 5 01:00 UTC 2006 |
*I* do? Hmmm.
|
cross
|
|
response 24 of 42:
|
Sep 5 01:32 UTC 2006 |
Well, that's my impression, yes.
|