|
Grex > Coop > #335: The jep agenda: Board election 2013 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jep
|
|
The jep agenda: Board election 2013
| 
Dec 26 19:14 UTC 2012 |
I wrote the following in the item asking for nominations, foolishly
asking that it not be cause to take over the nominations item. I am
sorry for that.
This item is the place to argue over my agenda, and my other
qualifications and intentions if I win a seat on the Grex Board.
---
I have a specific agenda. I want Grex/Cyberspace Inc. to merge with
Arbornet. If necessary, Grex should disband and donate it's assets to
Arbornet. It could then use either the general conference as it now
uses agora, or ask for the grex conference to be renamed 'agora' and
it's usage changed to duplicate the current Grex agora.
The purpose is that there are not enough people to justify two systems.
Grex is not self-sufficient. It has no staff other than tonster who is
the staff of both systems, and i who acts as cfadm on the rare occasions
when that is needed. M-Net really isn't self-sufficient, either. It
exists on the sufferance of tonster who keeps both Grex and M-Net in his
basement, and through the continuing efforts of tonster and Greg Russo
(who acts as cfadm).
Arbornet's bylaws currently allow for there to be one Board meeting per
year, and for that to be done on-line.
There is currently no Board for Arbornet.
At present I do not represent anyone. I have not attempted to gain any
support for my agenda from either M-Netters or Grexers.
Beyond that agenda, I served on the Arbornet Board for several years,
though not currently. I have been treasurer, vice president and
secretary. I never missed a Board meeting, and I always promoted the
best interests of Arbornet. I think I would be an asset to
Grex/Cyberspace as well. I will serve if elected, even if my agenda is
not accepted, but I will persistently and energetically pursue that
agenda if I become a member of the Board. I expect it to pass if I am
elected.
|
| 71 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 1 of 71:
|
Dec 26 19:36 UTC 2012 |
Both tonster and cross are opposed. They are also both staff members of
M-Net and Grex.
My initiative is not intended to resolve staff issues. I think it could
help, but that isn't the intention.
The purpose is that the two systems support a *tiny* number of users. I
would like to see the two communities join to become a more active
community. This could work. It may not, but it could. What we've got
isn't working. We're all waiting to see which of the exclusive list of
users lives the longest, then that person can shut down the system.
The purpose is that neither organization is sustaining itself. Neither
Grex/Cyberspace nor M-Net/Arbornet has regular board meetings or
elections any more. Neither one really needs them, either; they aren't
doing anything anyway.
The purpose is that things really can't get any worse. When you get
close enough to that point, it's time to make a change, and it doesn't
matter much what it is. For several years, I've been reading regular
items titled "Future of Grex", complaining nothing is changing. All
right, here's change.
The purpose is NOT to make everything be like M-Net, or like Grex. Even
if Grex shuts down and becomes part of M-Net, it's not going to do that.
Right now, three people could become members, call for an election, and
take over all of Arbornet. It wouldn't take much more effort to take
over Cyberspace Communications. (It is conceivable to me that I did
that already by nominating myself. If no one else wants anything here,
I will have an easy time of enacting my agenda.)
Eventually I'll post something like this on M-net's policy conference.
It is entirely a side benefit, and probably a silly one, but I have
always hated the name, "Cyberspace Communications". It doesn't describe
what this place is about, or was ever intended to do. It captures a
buzz word. That is all it does. It's a buzz word from 20 years ago at
that. It's like opening a tomato stand in 1958 and calling it
"Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, Inc.". If I can cause us to do
away with that name, it will be worthwhile.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 71:
|
Dec 27 00:32 UTC 2012 |
"Cyberspace Communications" (and cyberspace.org), as name and domain, may have
some value on the internet market. Certainly as antiquarian value. I'm
inclined to lean toward keeping them.
What do the articles of incoporation of the two require on dissolution? That
might have some affect on the decision.
|
kentn
|
|
response 3 of 71:
|
Dec 27 01:35 UTC 2012 |
As I noted previously, Grex is not running of money, and with our
current expenses, the donations people make cover them reasonably well.
We are looking forward to a new server soon, which will be a huge jump
in performance. That may let us do some things we never could do before
due to resource limitations. Something to look forward to!
The Board has met, on average, more than once a year for the last
several years. The Board has made numerous decisions, including
bringing to a vote the reduction in Board size that makes it easier for
us to field enough candidates to keep that aspect of Grex running.
As rabid as some people on each system are that "that other system"
not be merged with, agreed with, cooperated with, etc. I'm guessing at
least some people would rather see any benefits of a dissolution go to
any other charity other than the other system. I don't know if many
users would hang around after such a change. The two systems have their
own cultures and tend to be like oil and water. Thus, dissolution to
improve the other system doesn't seem like a good thing to pursue.
Grex has a lot of resources left, but I'd agree that motivated
volunteers tend to be in short supply. Even so, we have a dedicated
staff working behind the scenes, whether you see them or not. The Board
has been in communication and making decisions the entire year, mostly
in e-mail. This is the first time, I think, that we've had the majority
of Board members from outside Ann Arbor. That has been a challenge, but
we have a method of communicating for meetings (teleconference) and it
does work. Our bylaws allow for this form of Board meeting.
I oppose any dissolution of Grex at this time.
|
richard
|
|
response 4 of 71:
|
Dec 27 17:16 UTC 2012 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 71:
|
Dec 27 17:18 UTC 2012 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 6 of 71:
|
Dec 27 17:20 UTC 2012 |
I seem to recall that I suggested a grex/mnet merger on mnet's 'grex''
conf two or three years ago, at a time when grew was down for a few
weeks, and dave was posting (former owner of mnet at the time grew was
formed) He said something along the lines of "any such merger will
happen over my dead body' He still harbored much bitterness toward the
group of users that left mnet after he bought it and apparently became
dictatorial, to form grex all those years ago. I think I said it was
silly for him to still be that bitter, but that only made more angry.
I think its a good idea to merge. I did then.
|
jep
|
|
response 7 of 71:
|
Dec 27 20:51 UTC 2012 |
Heh, Dave Parks (kite) hasn't been associated with M-Net since shortly
after he sold the system to OAFS and then OAFS merged with Arbornet.
That was about 1990 or thereabouts.
You should run for the Board, richard. We can make it happen.
|
kentn
|
|
response 8 of 71:
|
Dec 28 02:29 UTC 2012 |
I think it's a bad idea to merge. I sure hope it doesn't happen.
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 71:
|
Dec 28 19:04 UTC 2012 |
For the record, I actually support a merger. I think it would make things
simpler, and I'm kind of into the idea of setting up separate communities on
the same physical system, but I recognize that that's not universally wanted.
|
kentn
|
|
response 10 of 71:
|
Dec 28 21:41 UTC 2012 |
The trouble with a merger, Dan, is that usually one culture or the other
will eventually get dropped. This is because one organization owns both
and someone will suggest to remove the duplication to save money (it's
only common sense to do so, right?).
Want to guess which system gets dropped if Grex is taken over by
Arbornet? And yes, I've seen this before in companies taken over by
merger. It's no fun and the loss of a good culture to the owner of both
leaves a lot of people wondering why things turned out so badly. It may
take a few years before it happens, but there's a very good chance it
will. The reason Grex started was to control its own destiny. A merger
will destroy that.
|
kentn
|
|
response 11 of 71:
|
Dec 29 02:26 UTC 2012 |
Oh and before anyone nitpicks the word "money" in my response, feel free
to substitute any other excuse (time, effort, aggravation, perceived
slight, cognitive dissonance, etc.). Mergers are generally about
synergy between the two organizations and I don't see much here other
than the system maintenance aspects. It seems to be all to Arbornet's
advantage otherwise. Not a good thing if you hope to maintain any
cultural aspects of Grex. And bear in mind, dissolving Cyberspace
Communications would essentially mean the end of Grex. There is no
guarantee the new owner of Grex's money, hardware and files would do
anything other than spend the money, use the hardware (or sell it), and
delete the files. To the victor go the spoils. Any assurances to the
contrary prior to any merger are not to be believed.
|
jep
|
|
response 12 of 71:
|
Dec 30 15:35 UTC 2012 |
I don't see it as a winner versus loser situation. For one thing,
Arbornet has nothing to do with the move. They aren't doing a
takeover of Grex. They aren't doing anything, of any sort. For
another, I expect to negotiate a deal where Grex's Agora will remain.
I don't see why the old conferences couldn't be moved over as well,
and remain exactly as they are now. The disk space requirements are
insignificant. It isn't 1985 any more, when every megabyte had to be
fought over.
Did you notice the part where I explained that Arbornet has no Board?
Grexers can keep your dark possibilities from happening.
I love Grex. I have been here since it first opened to the public,
and was at one of the planning meetings before it came online. I
spend much time on Grex, participating in serious discussions with
other people I have known for a long time. I don't want anything bad
to happen to Grex.
I see the move as consolidating two groups which used to be vibrant,
but which are both dying. I see it as consolidating two organizations
which have duplicate purposes and little energy.
I see it as shaking up things which have remained static for decades.
When you want to make a change, sometimes it's not a bad thing to
bring people together who don't talk and have them work on something
together.
I don't think Arbornet needs any more hardware. There's not enough
money, for either organization, to lose any sleep over. This is
anything but a grab for resources. Arbornet doesn't need them.
I'm not trying to nitpick anything, Kent. I hope it doesn't seem that
way to you. I have no intention of doing that. I have great respect
for you and am trying to pay attention to what you mean and what you
want to say. I think I am proposing a significant change, and I see
your response as filtering out to this: "But then things might be
different!" (Please correct me if that is wrong.) You wanted change
a few years ago, but nothing happened. Nothing at all. Isn't that
true?
I want your support. I would like this to be a consensus move. What
would get you to join in?
Grex can keep sliding ever downward, until it goes off line someday
and no one notices, or it can try something new and take a chance.
This is something new. It's not the only possibility that exists but
it's the most realistic one.
|
kentn
|
|
response 13 of 71:
|
Dec 30 16:43 UTC 2012 |
This is about Grex's independence and control. That's what got Grex
going in the first place, for good reason. Loss of that independence
and control will not improve things in spite of the passage of time.
As for "nothing happened," that's not quite true. We've made several
changes in the past few years, including reducing Grex's costs and
replacing an aging server (and preparing to do so again soon), giving
users more disk space, doing a better job of validating new users,
updating our web pages, reducing the size of our Board, updating the
operating system, installing more applications, removing the dial-ins
which few were using, and more.
It takes time and effort to make things happen, but we did get quite
a bit done. It can be frustrating to try to make things happen, but
that's a volunteer-run organization for you. In comparison to Grex's
past operation we've been doing a lot of things recently. We can still
do more. More work, such as planning, needs to occur outside of Board
meetings, and even that is possible to do if people are willing to help.
Merging/dissolving Grex will mean no more Cyberspace Board and no
Arbornet Board. Then what? Adding more money to Arbornet's bank account
will not magically make things happen. It's a matter of motivation.
What will motivate people to help? That's the question we need to
answer for Grex. I don't see dissolving Grex as helping. Spending time
on this is distracting from other tasks we need to be doing.
|
mary
|
|
response 14 of 71:
|
Dec 30 16:59 UTC 2012 |
Ken has done a whole lot to keep Grex alive over the past few years. He
is kinda the honey badger of making sure we survive. When almost
everyone else has lost enthusiasm for the cause - Ken is working, in the
background, to make sure we're up. If you get up in the morning and log
into Grex you should thank Ken, cross & tonster for keeping the lights
on.
M-net would despise having anything to do with Grex. Really. Almost to
a fault everyone there would freak. I can't think of a good enough
reason to force the two systems to have any joint responsibilities. I
think jep has an alternate motivation here - to get people to run
(against him) for the board seat.
If the time comes when we really can't support ourselves in terms of
money or staff then I'd much rather we move to The Well where there is a
large and thriving community of users. The Well was recently purchased,
from Salon, by a group of its users, many of whom have been there since
it began in 1985. We have much in common and I think we'd do as well
there as anywhere.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 71:
|
Dec 30 17:45 UTC 2012 |
Not much to add, except that I agree with Kent and Mary.
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 71:
|
Dec 31 20:29 UTC 2012 |
re resp:14: I wouldn't run just to get others to run. I wouldn't say
I'll do something if I wasn't willing to do it. I wouldn't do it if I
didn't expect good results.
I would back off it if I became convinced it would be bad for Grex,
though I think that is unlikely to happen. I think it's best, that is
why I am pushing for it. I don't have any other ideas in reserve that
would be better. If I did, I would say so now.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 71:
|
Dec 31 21:59 UTC 2012 |
What's your response to the points Kent and Mary raised in resp:13 and
resp:14?
|
jep
|
|
response 18 of 71:
|
Jan 2 02:53 UTC 2013 |
re resp:17: I write more than I post. I wrote responses to those things
but trimmed them out.
re resp:13: Grex was started because the founders didn't think M-Net
would last under Dave Parks' wildly erratic control. Several of the
principal founders were M-Net's staff. They gave up on Dave, and
committed to a new system controlled by a group instead of an
individual. M-Net uses basically the same structure as Grex now.
I've said repeatedly that Grexers can become members of Arbornet and run
M-Net. Control the Board, replace the staff, call the combined system
"Grex" and rename genera to "agora". Break my heart and rename Arbornet
to "Cyberspace Communications". No one is going to tell Grexers what to do.
Name one thing -- ONE -- that hasn't happened because I am running for
the Board of Cyberspace Communications.
I am known to just about everyone here. I've been involved in M-Net for
a long time. Now I'm involved here. I don't think anyone would
consider me an obstacle or deadweight. Grex needs people like me.
re resp:14: I know of only two people on M-Net who say they despise Grex
and Grexers, and one of them does so because of the other one.
The parts of your response that I didn't address previously, state that
I don't appreciate kentn. That may be true; I have not tried to follow
a lot of the hidden operations that keep Grex running. I'm aware of
those things (I did them for a few years for Arbornet) but have not paid
attention to them here.
I am of course glad Grex is still here, and grateful for all of the work
that is done to keep it going.
As a Board member I will expect to participate in that work. I have a
record that you can review on that. I was part of M-Net's Board for a
number of years. I did quite a lot during that time. I didn't just
throw out sweeping revisions and expect others to do the things that
were needed.
IN GENERAL: If anyone has concerns I haven't addressed, please let me
know about them. I don't intend to ignore anyone.
|