|
Grex > Coop7 > #16: Special Board Meeting re. TIIAP Grant Application | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 220 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 125 of 220:
| 
May 24 01:47 UTC 1995 |
Ja -- Hi Dave, and welcome to Grex!
|
remmers
|
|
response 126 of 220:
|
May 24 13:49 UTC 1995 |
It gets easier. :)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 127 of 220:
|
May 25 04:15 UTC 1995 |
Well, dpc, we meet again. Somehow this is going to work.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 128 of 220:
|
May 25 12:09 UTC 1995 |
Hm. Evidently Arbornet's board needed to approve linking their WIN
conference with other systems, and they didn't approve of it. So now
we need to figure out if it's worth having a second WIN conference
here on Grex, in addition to the one on M-Net. (My personal opinion
is that we don't need to have two WIN conferences, but I'd like to hear
what other people's thoughts are.)
|
danr
|
|
response 129 of 220:
|
May 25 14:31 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 130 of 220:
|
May 25 20:09 UTC 1995 |
Guess I should check out the m-net policy conference. But it sounds
like yet another in a string of recent Arbornet moves that make no
sense to me.
I think it makes sense to have a WIN conference anywhere that WIN-
involved folks are willing to come and carry on dialog with the
public. Inasmuch as Grex has worked closely with WIN and is on
record as wishing to continue an association, I'd hope that WIN
folks are willing to come here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 220:
|
May 25 21:37 UTC 1995 |
I think it is appropriate to have a Grex WIN conference. We are associated
with them, and we need to convey and discuss information concerned with
Grex's participation. I would not worry about what is done on other
systems: they have their own motivations. If there develops eventually
a mutual advantage to consolidating, that is simple to accomplish.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 132 of 220:
|
May 25 23:14 UTC 1995 |
Re: #130 - John, I am also perplexed. I do give jep credit for
trying to get the link approved. I just really do not know
what to think about the Arbornet board actions. How can denying
the link help the members of Arbornet? Oh well!
|
janc
|
|
response 133 of 220:
|
May 26 06:25 UTC 1995 |
Well, at least the Arbornet board is consistant in their willingness to
cooperate with WIN.
|
steve
|
|
response 134 of 220:
|
May 27 19:31 UTC 1995 |
Unforunately, I have to agree Jan.
|
selena
|
|
response 135 of 220:
|
May 29 06:04 UTC 1995 |
I don't think M-net is showing any sign of good faith, here..
|
adbarr
|
|
response 136 of 220:
|
May 31 01:21 UTC 1995 |
Selena, it would certainly help understand the situation if the
Arbornet Board would explain why. Of course, they do not have
to do so. But surely they must know the impression it leaves on
the rest of the networking community here. Perhaps I am being
presumptious by including myself and Grex, and HVCN in the networking
community? What really saddens me is the potential loss of all
the good cooperation that could come from the many, many, good
and sincere individuals at Arbornet - members and staff and
officers and directors. This is not a pretty picture! Oh, and
hello!
|
selena
|
|
response 137 of 220:
|
May 31 05:21 UTC 1995 |
Hi.
All I was saying is, yes, it's sad, 'cause I'm on both nets, and
I really don't see wht they're being so odd about this. <sigh>
It's not like these two systems are that different anymore, anyway.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 138 of 220:
|
Jun 1 02:40 UTC 1995 |
You know both systems and can think about this in that context -- is it
simply a matter of pride? Arbornet and the many people who have helped
create their system have worked hard to develop something worthwhile.
It is not unusual to create something really great and to think that
*everyone* will sing your praises, and reward you with gold and silver.
Then, in everyday discourse, you are not treated with the respect you
think you should have. When that happens, it does not create positive
reactions. What Arbornet does not understand is that shit happens, and
the future should not be built on unspoken harms. Let's talk.
|
selena
|
|
response 139 of 220:
|
Jun 1 04:59 UTC 1995 |
right.
Can we talk about why we all can't get along in the WIN consortium?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 140 of 220:
|
Jun 1 06:31 UTC 1995 |
How about talking about how we can all get along in the WIN consortium?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 141 of 220:
|
Jun 1 12:38 UTC 1995 |
Let it be. When or if they want to join in with a larger
group I'm sure they'll do so. There should be no pressure
to do so. None.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 142 of 220:
|
Jun 1 16:11 UTC 1995 |
I haven't observed any pressure - just talk. Idle speculation.
Curiosity. Drift.....
|
adbarr
|
|
response 143 of 220:
|
Jun 2 00:54 UTC 1995 |
I have not been to the WIN conf . on M-Net for a few days. Last
time I looked - it was not crowded at all. I think a WIN
conf here would get more interest. rickyb - your thoughts?
I do believe WIN will be heard from again, and in the near term.
Everything I see points to the good sense of WIN.
|
selena
|
|
response 144 of 220:
|
Jun 2 03:14 UTC 1995 |
No pressure was meant- I'm just expressing my confusion at the
whole thing.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 145 of 220:
|
Jun 2 11:18 UTC 1995 |
re #144 - Selena - Please expand "confusion" - I am missing something
here and do not want to reread all posts right now. Thanks.
|
selena
|
|
response 146 of 220:
|
Jun 2 14:18 UTC 1995 |
Confusion over arbornet's entire way of handling WIN
|
popcorn
|
|
response 147 of 220:
|
Jun 2 14:31 UTC 1995 |
Me too.
|
steve
|
|
response 148 of 220:
|
Jun 2 14:39 UTC 1995 |
I guess I'm in that camp, too.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 149 of 220:
|
Jun 3 00:50 UTC 1995 |
Looks like a membership roster in a new club, to me! Thanks Selena.
|