|
|
| Author |
Message |
mary
|
|
Communication
| 
Feb 28 00:30 UTC 1997 |
Thanks, jared, but I don't need a personal copy. I'd like to back up some
and maybe do a bit of a rant. Those who don't care to read it are excused
for the next few screens.
Way back when Grex was being dreamed-up a bunch of folks (lovingly
referred to as founders) would sit around talking about what they hoped
would happen with Grex. One of the most important principles we tried to
incorporate was that of membership involvement and participation. We
wanted a co-operatively run conferencing system. Folks wouldn't have to
get into the guts of Grex governance but if they cared to they'd be
welcomed.
And know what? That's what Grex started out to do. But
I think something may have been overlooked by some who
supported the concept. It's not enough to simply want users to
be involved. More, it is an ongoing *project* requiring continued
*effort* to make sure the users are in the loop, looked to
for input, and their questions addressed.
I made a comment that the faster connection issue hadn't really been
discussed with the members and was told it had and to "chill". Well, I'll
be happy to apologize if my suggestion was out of order and this had been
discussed somewhere in co-op, but all I can recall is what is in item #46.
Valerie entered item #46 after a first exploratory meeting with a
provider. She mentioned a number of possible scenarios. A few users came
back with questions and suggestions, most received no response. There was
no follow up as to the final plan. No mention of how much the routers
would cost. No mention of how much our monthly phone bill would increase.
No talk about the final contract.
If this was where the membership was kept informed... Well, the
news ain't good.
I don't think this was some malicious secret project. But I also don't
think anyone takes responsibility for making sure the users are kept
updated. Any vote which involves this kind of money and a contractual
commitment really must get out of baff mail and staff meetings and get
communicated to all who care to be involved *before* a Board vote.
At least if we're sincere about our stated goals.
That is all. ;-)
|
| 55 responses total. |
adbarr
|
|
response 1 of 55:
|
Feb 28 02:00 UTC 1997 |
Mary, points well taken, but -- but -- has there been, will there be real
damage here? Money is an area I can understand, keeping people updated seems
to be done quite well here, for the most part. Isn't the board mandated to
make these kinds of judgments? Vote them out if they don't protect the
corporation. What is the corporation? Who is the corporation? Grex is unusual
in providing such a clear channel for the voices of non-members. May it always
be so. I value your ideas and opinions, but don't always understand. Simplify?
|
dpc
|
|
response 2 of 55:
|
Feb 28 03:29 UTC 1997 |
Well, I felt informed and think it was OK for the Board to make this
decision.
|
scg
|
|
response 3 of 55:
|
Feb 28 04:29 UTC 1997 |
At the board meeting last night, we discussed Mary's objections. It was fealt
by pretty much everybody there, including those who are not in the staff
conference or the baff mailing list, that there had been plenty of online
discussion of getting a faster Internet connection, and that nobody had
objected until Mary objected, on the day of the meeting, several days after
the agenda was posted, saying that there hadn't been enough discussion.
The one thing that hadn't been posted, and we did consider that to be a bit
of a problem, was the contract. Copies of a draft of the contract were passed
around at the meeting, and will be posted online shortly. There was nothing
in the draft that looked like it might make people uncomfortable. Even so,
when we authorized Valerie to sign the contract, we specified that it has to
be posted in Coop for a week before it can be signed.
The terms of the deal are that we will provide the routers for both ends and
the ISDN lines, and CICNet will provide us with a 64K connection for free.
We also agree to let CICNet test some things on us, such as web caching, but
that's stuff that will help us anyway. We also agree to put a few lines in
the MOTD about CICNet, but that isn't really any different than the current
ICNet line. The ISDN routers are going to cost us $595 for each end. The
lines will cost around $28 per month each, so not much more than our current
POTS connection to ICNet. Line installation is something like $120 for each
end. If CICNet ever offers us 128K ISDN instead of the 64K, all we have to
do is change a configuration setting on the routers..
|
arthurp
|
|
response 4 of 55:
|
Feb 28 04:36 UTC 1997 |
I was comfortable with this. I'm also a techie and follow these things
closely. I might not be a good barometer for this.
|
babozita
|
|
response 5 of 55:
|
Feb 28 14:19 UTC 1997 |
Yet another indication as to why Staff conference should NOT be closed.
That was beautiful, Mary. It's always wonderful when someone remembers that
this is a democratic system, and that the views of one or two people, or an
elitist cabal, shouldn't be the way the system works.
It's too bad that you don't follow your own sermons, but what can one expect?
|
dang
|
|
response 6 of 55:
|
Feb 28 16:32 UTC 1997 |
It has only been one week at most that the details have been known to anyown.
THe contract wasn't posted because we didn't have it. The prices weren't
posted because we didn't have them. I'm on staff. I read the staff and baff
mailing lists, and the staff cf, and I didn't know any of the stuff Mary
objected to until the board meeting either. No one really did. So, it's not
a case of people not being informed, it a case of fast development. On the
other had, I agree with Mary in principal. I agree completely, and if I
thought this was a case of that, I'd yell too. I don't think this is such
a case.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 55:
|
Feb 28 17:06 UTC 1997 |
"fast development" is no excuse for bypassing democratic processes. If you
miss out because you didn't respond fast enough - tough. However, democratic
processes can put in place conditions and procedures for fast response, by
prior authorizations of certain contingencies. You'll still miss some
opportunities, but you'll also avoid autocratic rule.
|
tsty
|
|
response 8 of 55:
|
Feb 28 19:46 UTC 1997 |
yes, there were some specific details for this new accessibility offer
presented at the board meeting.
i think for years, since the first 2400 bps connection, there has been
teh constant muttering of 'more bandwidth.' that this specific and
particular option congealed faster than perhaps optimal, it is, as
mary points out, subject to discussion/approval.
before it is solidified (president has been given the option of
signing a contract at any time from now), the contract and its
negotiation(s) should be made public and discussed.
even though autocratic is always an option, i don't consider that
autocratic will prevail.
there is a separate item for the cicnet conditions of use.
the propsed contract merits its own separate item.
<<for the life of me, i don't know why the ameritech/centrex
contract was not posted, or is there one?>>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 9 of 55:
|
Mar 1 00:29 UTC 1997 |
Please state, succinctly, the real issue here. I sense we are tilting at
rotating water pumps driven by air currents. If we don't trust those we have
entrusted, who are we?
|
janc
|
|
response 10 of 55:
|
Mar 1 14:44 UTC 1997 |
Re #5: There has been *no* discussion of this in the staff conference. There
has been some discussion of the technical issues in the garage conference.
There really hasn't been very much discussion anywhere, because frankly, there
hasn't been much to say. There has been almost no controversy about whether
we should go for a faster net connection. There has been almost no
controversy over what kind of equipment we should use. For a long time now,
there have been no new developments to report. Last week Jared began to get
more active in helping to push this deal through. I personally didn't rush
forward to report it in coop because (1) the deal differed only in small
details (connection to UM CC instead of Paul's house) from the ones previously
discussed which were thoroughly uncontroversial, and (2) it isn't always
prudent to publish blow-by-blow accounts of ungoing negotiations. The deal
still isn't completely finalized, but it's current form was published within
a couple days after it was reached. Admittedly, that was pretty shortly
before the meeting.
But nothing has been signed. The final form of the agreement hasn't been
written. It will still be a least a week before we are likely to sign
anything. The board was comfortable enough with the outline of the deal
proposed to authorize Valerie to go ahead and complete it (so we don't have
to wait a month to act on it). However, if real problems arise, we certainly
aren't committed to anything yet. You want time for public input? Here it
is. Input away. This is absolutely a democracy. If I see a strong outcry
against this in the next week I will certainly try to revise our stance to
accomodate those views. So far, I haven't seen much of any.
It is important that the users have a chance to talk about policy and that
the board listen well and try its best to keep people happy. But as long as
the board is willing to change its mind, I think it is sometimes OK to start
the ball rolling on things before all the discussion has been done, and
sometimes it is the only way for the board to be able to respond in a timely
way to opportunities. It isn't obvious that the deal being offered will be
available forever. We do need to get moving on implementing things like
this. If we are confident that the action will win general support, it
makes sense to start going on it while still being ready to change our minds
if we guessed the mood of the users wrong.
|
dpc
|
|
response 11 of 55:
|
Mar 1 17:21 UTC 1997 |
This is a *very* good deal for Grex and I hope Valerie signs the contract.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 12 of 55:
|
Mar 1 18:44 UTC 1997 |
She is the Chief Executive Officer, is she not? The board of directors are
charged with representing the best interests of the corporation. We elected
them in a fair democratic process. Let them do their job. They have the
judgment and experience and training to perform. Our job is to give them the
tools. If we lose confidence in someone's ability, fine. Vote them out.
Micromanaging every decision is a journey to mediocrity, at best. I
respectfully suggest we drop this as a serious matter of discussion. It is
amusing to me that some who are abhored by written rules of order, stake so
much on on other protocols.
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 55:
|
Mar 1 21:57 UTC 1997 |
Arnold, what you are saying makes perfect sense, and this discussion
would be much about nothing, if we were trying to act like your
typical corporate entity where folks are elected, shareholders
sign proxy cards, and that's the end of the members' input.
We instead started out to *be* about membership involvement.
That is why any member can bring an issue to a vote. That is
why Board meetings are open to the public and Board issues
should not be discussed only among the Board members. Business was
to happen in the open with as much membership involvement as
possible. It is specifically mentioned in the Bylaws that it
is a duty of the Board to keep members updated. This is a
huge chunk of what makes Grex special.
Now, I'm not saying the ship has been sunk and the journey is
over. I'm not saying our Board has lost the vision. I'm just
saying to take a look at our priorities when making decisions
like this one. Item #46 (all 14 responses) did not qualify
as a membership update. This was not an emergency situation.
And any contract which must be rushed into without being
first disclosed to the members is probably something that should
be processed with extreme caution anyhow.
If we were really sincere about encouraging membership involvement
New Business items on the agenda would be for discussion
only unless it was truly an emergency issue or very
trivial indeed.
If this "membership involvement" thing sounds odd to you, Arnold, maybe
it's because you've never seen it before. We hadn't either. It was an
experiment that, so far, has worked quite well and made Grex very special.
I think it is worth effort and inconvenience to make certain members are
included as much as possible. Good communication should be thought of
as an expectation not a courtesy.
I appreciate that the contract has been posted and that details
are being made available before the deal is finalized. Thanks.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 14 of 55:
|
Mar 1 23:37 UTC 1997 |
And that said, board brought it up as soon as they knew about it. The actions
taken at the board meeting were to authorize action after a suitable
discussion period in this conference. They acted so as to prevent the need
for a special board meeting in a week or two. They acted in the interest of
informing the members. The need for speed here is that this is a gift, and
if not acted on quickly it may go away. In spite of that they are not
allowing the contract to be signed until it has been posted in here for a
week. A long delay, but they decided, a necessary one.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 15 of 55:
|
Mar 2 02:25 UTC 1997 |
Re # 13: Processing request, all memory banks in use. Re#14 Understood. Prior
requests in process. [Sheesh!]
|
steve
|
|
response 16 of 55:
|
Mar 9 04:26 UTC 1997 |
Mary, I don't understand what your threshold is for user involvement
as opposed to the staff / board doing things.
|
mary
|
|
response 17 of 55:
|
Mar 9 13:12 UTC 1997 |
Big things are discussed with the membership or even brought
to the members for a vote before action is taken. Little things
related mostly to housekeeping which don't involve instituting new
policy or spending more than, say, $500, could be handled a simply
a staff/Board responsiblity. If there is a question as to whether
the members should be involved in the decision then involve the
members. That is my opinion.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 18 of 55:
|
Mar 10 15:19 UTC 1997 |
Drawing the line between little issue and big issues is always a problem.
At the Respond or pass? prompt of many so-called big isses on this
system I type: forget
Others might consider that fact that Grex is not connected to the line
with a UL recognized power coard to be a big issue.
|
dpc
|
|
response 19 of 55:
|
Mar 11 04:06 UTC 1997 |
Zap!
|
mary
|
|
response 20 of 55:
|
Mar 11 19:34 UTC 1997 |
Would anyone call the issue that prompted #0 a close call and
maybe not worth keeping the membership informed?
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 55:
|
Mar 11 22:29 UTC 1997 |
My recollection was that, when the T1 connection failed to materialize,
that staff would be moving forward expeditiously on other options for
speeding up the network link, and that ISDN would probably be the
technology used.
I feel that the user community has pretty well endorsed the idea of
a faster internet link; the ISDN deal, while not as wondrous as the T1
deal which did not happen, has the advantage of not saddling Grex
with large monthly telephone bills.
Since the planned ISDN connection isn't going to make a big change in Grex'
cash flow, and isn't going to be an order of magnitude faster
than the modems we have today, I don't see the need to treat this
as anything more than a routine maintenance upgrade.
The ISDN link is not going to be as significant a change
as the T1 would have been.
|
mary
|
|
response 22 of 55:
|
Mar 12 01:26 UTC 1997 |
You know, maybe this isn't a real issue. Certainly, if I'm
the only one who is concerned, my comments aren't going to
make a lot of sense to anyone.
Uncle.
|
mta
|
|
response 23 of 55:
|
Mar 12 05:09 UTC 1997 |
Mary, I think that perhaps this *is* a non-issue -- but your reminders to
keep in mind the user community when making decisions and make sure we
keep the community up to date are very valuable. Not because the staff
or board wants to not keep the community informed but because so many
things can fall into that grey line between what is a pure routine maint.
issue and what is a definite "the users must decide". It helps to be
reminded (gently) now and then to carefully evaluate which camp any given
issue falls closer to.
|
srw
|
|
response 24 of 55:
|
Mar 12 20:08 UTC 1997 |
I agree with that and appreciate the fact that we have Mary's comments
to balance against the other forces that we also need.
|