|
Grex > Coop > #274: Grex's Declaration of Principles | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mary
|
|
Grex's Declaration of Principles
| 
Apr 12 22:14 UTC 2010 |
At last night's BOD meeting the subject of Grex's mission was raised.
Our mission statement, titled Declaration of Principles, was written in
May of 1991, and it hasn't really been formally reviewed since. At
least not that I'm aware of. Maybe that's because it's so broadly
written that it's still a good fit. Or maybe not.
I'll post it below. Does it still capture what we are doing? What we
want to be doing? Are changes needed?
*******************************************
Grex's Declaration of Principles
This system is intended to foster community education and the
spiritual and intellectual enrichment of its users through
the peaceable interchange of ideas.
The members of this system hope to attract a large, diverse, and
mature group of thinking individuals and thereby to contribute
to a better-informed citizenry.
Governance of the system is based on cooperative principles,
including open membership, democratic control, and non-
profit economics.
This is an open-access system; the public is welcome. However,
regular users are encouraged to become members and help
support the system financially. Voting on system policy
matters is restricted to members.
It should go without saying that the system is specifically NOT
intended for any illegal purpose.
Users are asked to be considerate of others, and are especially
asked to make a point of setting a good example for those
few who may from time to time fail to return the favor.
******************************************************
Online this document is found at:
https://grex.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/principles.xhtml
|
| 28 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 1 of 28:
|
Apr 12 22:29 UTC 2010 |
I should add that it's my recollection that this is a founding document.
Even the bylaws came later. But if someone else knows more about its
history, please correct me.
|
tsty
|
|
response 2 of 28:
|
Apr 14 05:28 UTC 2010 |
i thnk we are still upholding this declatration.
|
kentn
|
|
response 3 of 28:
|
Apr 14 12:45 UTC 2010 |
We aren't attracting a large mature group...in fact, we're attracting
less people, less members. It's hard to say we are open-access if we
drop people into a restricted shell right away and then force them to
apply (in several steps) for further access. That doesn't seem very
welcoming to me. We aren't encouraging regular users to become members,
either, and haven't for some time (over a year). Thus, our ability
to govern is falling apart (how many members do we really have if you
ignore that the Board extended memberships to people who had not paid?).
So, it doesn't seem to me we are upholding this declaration very well
at all.
Adherence to a mission statement without regard for changing conditions
will not lead to any improvement in our current situation, which many
feel is untenable already.
If the declaration itself is good, then we need to start improving our
adherence to it by actually doing the things it advocates. If we can't
do that, then we should change our declaration to reflect how we intend
to operate and change what we do to adhere to that new declaration.
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 28:
|
Apr 14 14:41 UTC 2010 |
I'd like Tony's advice on how we could open up access without being so
very vulnerable to twits. M-Net doesn't see to have that problem. Why is
that?
I agree with Kent's #3.
|
tonster
|
|
response 5 of 28:
|
Apr 14 16:28 UTC 2010 |
I'm not as familiar with OpenBSD as I am with FreeBSD, but I, like Dan,
wonder how it is that OpenBSD seems to have more issues than M-Net, and
further wonder if we wouldn't find the stability increase if we
switched. It's among the reasons we've lobbied for switching away from
OpenBSD. We know that we've got the same users who have abused both
systems, but only Grex has really suffered real downtime. m-net has had
it's share of annoyance, but only once did we ever even reboot due to
the abuse, and I'm not sure the reboot was necessary so much as easier.
|
kentn
|
|
response 6 of 28:
|
Apr 16 03:42 UTC 2010 |
"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there." (Will Rogers)
|
cross
|
|
response 7 of 28:
|
Apr 19 04:34 UTC 2010 |
I agree with switching. By the way, greetings from Helmand, Afghanistan.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 8 of 28:
|
Apr 19 06:18 UTC 2010 |
|
slynne
|
|
response 9 of 28:
|
Apr 19 14:52 UTC 2010 |
Nice to see you, cross. Stay safe!
|
kentn
|
|
response 10 of 28:
|
Apr 19 15:33 UTC 2010 |
Yeah, thanks for dropping in. I hope everything is going well for you.
Do please stay safe!
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 28:
|
Apr 20 17:10 UTC 2010 |
I have the impressions that:
1. M-Net has more aggressively managed individual troublemakers.
2. Grex has been more aggressively targeted by troublemakers.
In regards to 1, I think M-Net staff has felt less bound by principles
in dealing with the problem than has Grex staff.
As for maintaining an "open" system, it has to be said that the
viability of any open society depends on the willingness of its
constituents to band together to isolate and/or exclude those
individuals who would otherwise effectively destroy the system through
sociopathic behavior. Grex has shown a willingness to take limited
steps toward that end, but most constituents have simply felt it was
easier to walk away.
The obvious conclusion is that in the current environment, Grex is
either not viable, or will have to demonstrate a willingness to adapt
(possibly compromising some principles) in order to prove it is viable.
In the latter case, the follow-up question is, "What does Grex have to
do (and become) to remain viable?"
|
richard
|
|
response 12 of 28:
|
Apr 21 20:59 UTC 2010 |
re #5 yes some of the same trolls who sabatoge grex also use mnet and
cause no problems there. I think Grex comes across as more bureacratic
than Mnet, for whatever reason and has more older regular users. When
you have more high minded people to piss off, it sseemingly makes it
more fun for them.
|
cross
|
|
response 13 of 28:
|
Apr 22 03:10 UTC 2010 |
Grexers hold themselves very superior to most people; I think that has a lot
to do with it. resp:12 is a perfect example. "When you have more high
minded people to piss off, it seemingly makes it more fun for them."
High-minded people? Come on; how arrogant.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 28:
|
Apr 22 05:13 UTC 2010 |
"more bureacratic"??? It is almost impossible to find any bureau around here
at all.
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 28:
|
Apr 22 19:04 UTC 2010 |
I should have said, 'more people who SEEM or might come across to
outsiders as high minded'
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 28:
|
Apr 22 23:00 UTC 2010 |
re #14
I think a better word for Grex's arrogant few would be cohors praetoria.
M-Net is plain anarchy with a disregard for the Ann Arbor superiority
complex. Grex ails from the latter.
|
richard
|
|
response 17 of 28:
|
Apr 23 17:55 UTC 2010 |
re #16 plain anarchy isn't conducive to running a solid organization.
Arbornet is a shell of what it once was and has even less of a
mission/purpose than Grex.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 28:
|
Apr 23 23:52 UTC 2010 |
r e#17
plain anarchy isn't conducive to running a solid organization
WHat's to run?
|