|
Grex > Coop8 > #32: The Grex's Landlords item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 125 of 269:
| 
May 16 14:00 UTC 1996 |
I think it'd be a great idea, but I suspect that some Grex people are still
a bit soured on cooperation with Arbornet. I might be wrong though.
|
steve
|
|
response 126 of 269:
|
May 16 14:19 UTC 1996 |
I think its a good idea to keep the sytems seperate.
|
janc
|
|
response 127 of 269:
|
May 16 16:51 UTC 1996 |
You could have two separate systems in the same room. They don't have to
share anything except rent and a wastebasket.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 128 of 269:
|
May 16 19:08 UTC 1996 |
..and the ventilation system, fire alarm, and decor.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 129 of 269:
|
May 16 19:53 UTC 1996 |
bad idea...grex needs a separate identity...put it in the same place
as m-net and things will just get intertwined and the impression might
come that grex is dependent on arbornet. How long would it be before
grex's staff advantages and m-net's financial advantages cause people to
start calling for a merger.
And it would put staff on grex in an uncomfortable position if they are
on-site and grex needs work but m-net is down altogether, and noone is
around. Grex staff could end up as de-facto m-net staffers and vice
versa.
Besides, its always nice, if a rainstorm or electrical problems knock
out grex or mnet, the other is more often than not up so there's a
place to go to, which wouldnt be the case at times if they are sharing
the same physical location. So as a public service, I'd say they need
to be separate.
|
janc
|
|
response 130 of 269:
|
May 16 21:46 UTC 1996 |
I'm not sure that Grex envy's Arbornet's financial status. We set up the
rules for how we collect money with the clear knowledge that it wasn't going
to bring in as much money as Arbornet does. Sure, we'd like to have more
money to work with, but not at the price of increasing the distinction between
guests and members. I don't think merging is so very big a temptation for
either organization.
Perception of separateness hardly matters. Most users have no idea where Grex
is located (beyond being "somewhere in Ann Arbor"). No need to advertize the
co-location loudly.
There is no way we'd want Arbornet staff working on Grex or vice versa. Grex
staff is in constant communication via Email and the staff conference. We
don't want *anyone* working on the system who isn't in that loop. I'd rather
have Grex stay down than have some outsider start working on it without the
knowledge of any Grex staffer. I'm sure the Arbornet staff would feel the
same. That doesn't mean that an Arbornet staffer on site who notices a
problem on Grex wouldn't phone a Grex person, or even do some stuff while
coordinating with a Grex staffer on the phone. It doesn't mean that some
people might be on both staffs. That's all fine. Cooperation between the
systems would be a good thing. However, ground rules would have to be that
the staff members of one system don't touch the other system unless the other
system is actually spouting flames. I wouldn't even be very happy about
sharing tape back-up devices or tools. It isn't worth the money saved.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 131 of 269:
|
May 16 22:01 UTC 1996 |
The other thing about sharing a common site is that it would double the
amount of phone lines coming out of one room. I wonder if the phone
company has any rules about how many maximum number of lines they will put
in one room?
|
carson
|
|
response 132 of 269:
|
May 17 12:28 UTC 1996 |
heh. that too. =)
|
tsty
|
|
response 133 of 269:
|
May 17 13:03 UTC 1996 |
only if you don;t pay for a few of them ... <g>
|
jep
|
|
response 134 of 269:
|
May 17 17:15 UTC 1996 |
We could put a network cable between the two systems. A lot of
e-mail goes from one to the other. A lot of people telnet from one to the
other. There's been talk of shared conferences; those would be easier
over a fast network connection. The two systems might split costs on a T1
connection to the Internet.
I've been as deep into the problems in sharing the resources of the
two systems closely as anyone. There are some problems. Maybe there
are more advantages than problems, though.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 135 of 269:
|
May 17 18:46 UTC 1996 |
well, if there were some small commercial place (such as the office on S. Main
south of Packard) perhaps the systems could split rent, utilities,
ventilation, etc and still have two, separate secured rooms for the separate
systems. Johns ideas of a network connection and shared T1 line could still
be possible, yet physically separate systems would exist, if only 10 feet
apart.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 136 of 269:
|
May 17 18:51 UTC 1996 |
I'm picturing the grex and m-net consoles face to face with a single chair
between them because the room isn't big enough for two chairs. :-)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 137 of 269:
|
May 17 19:41 UTC 1996 |
Well if this is the case, may as well keep the staffs separate but merge
the cyberspace and arbornet boards...in many cities it used to be you'd
have morning and evening newspapers housed in the same building with both
having the same parent company but completely different editorial boards.
and newsroom personnel.
I mean if grex and mnet are going to be in the same place sharing the
same T1 line and ip connection, might as well go all the way and combine
finances so only one rent check would be sent out every month and only one
set of phone and electric bills would be needed.
|
carson
|
|
response 138 of 269:
|
May 17 20:02 UTC 1996 |
JOA?
ugh.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 139 of 269:
|
May 18 02:46 UTC 1996 |
Oblivion -- Ugh! Better to be separate and die?
|
gregc
|
|
response 140 of 269:
|
May 18 07:04 UTC 1996 |
Unbelievable.
I was all set to post a response saying that moving into a shared room
would be a really bad idea, even if *everthing* was separate, because it
would only be a matter of time before somebody on one side or the other
would suggest "it's really inefficiant for both of us to be paying for
an internet connection, let's combine our resources and get one fast link".
And then, before I can even enter the response, Jep goes and makes that
very suggestion in response #34.
If we are in the same location there will be a *very* strong temptation to
start combining things for cost/efficiency reasons. First the Inet connection,
then the modems, then power, then staff, etc, etc.
I hear alot of you saying: "Well, why is that a bad thing?"
Becuase Grex and Mnet are 2 very different systems with very different
goals in mind. Grex was created because of disgust with Mnet's methods
and there are still many people on Grex's board/staff that want nothing
to do with all the silly burecratic/politically machinations that go
on with Mnet. If you doubt me, read Mnet's policy conference someday.
They currently have a great number of people who like to play politics and
we don't want to get sucked into that mess.
If we are at the same location, I can easily see the following begin
to happen over a period of time:
1.) Since Grex staff would also have physical access to the Mnet machine,
would new Grex staff also have to be approved by Mnet?
2.) If we began sharing an Inet connection, and Mnet decided they wanted
filter certain "objectionable" material, would we be forced to go along
with this?
3.) Grex allows "guest" usage on all it's lines, Mnet does not. If we
shared an Inet connection, eventually we would probably find that Grex
was using the bulk of the bandwidth because of all the free people
telnetting in. Mnet would, rightly, be annoyed by this. I can envision
them pressuring us to limit our free access.
4.) Mnet has a limited number(4?) of guest dailins. But guests can call
all of our lines. After mnet's fill up, they would just call our system
and telnet to Mnet.
I don't see this as an immediate thing, more like a slow evolution. Once
we are both in the same location, somebody will begin to get the idea
that it "makes sense" to start combining things. This will lead to one
system or the other having to make a compromise on it's priciples to
satisfy the other system. That's a bad thing. The 2 systems are trying
to do 2 different things. Keep them separate.
|
scg
|
|
response 141 of 269:
|
May 18 10:43 UTC 1996 |
I would not be at all comfortable sharing space with Arbornet. Remember the
WIN project, and what Arbornet did? I really don't think we want some of the
Arbornet people involved in that to have keys to Grex's space.
|
janc
|
|
response 142 of 269:
|
May 18 11:20 UTC 1996 |
From the begining I haven't believed there was a chance in hell of this
happening, so this discussion is really kind of pointless. But I think the
arguments that say "If we did A then someday we'd probably do B, and B would
be a disaster" are really, really weak. We aren't going to suddenly go stupid
and forget all the reasons why B is bad just because we've done A.
The real issue, I think, is that too many Grex people are too uncomfortable
with the way Arbornet does business. I've been more involved with Arbornet
politics more recently than many other people here, and I can see the basis
for that distrust, but I don't really believe Grex would easily pick up the
infection. We're stronger than you think.
|
robh
|
|
response 143 of 269:
|
May 18 11:29 UTC 1996 |
The key, of course, is to make sure we infect them first. >8)
|
remmers
|
|
response 144 of 269:
|
May 18 11:55 UTC 1996 |
I think that both Grex and M-Net have benefited from independence
and (mostly friendly) competition and would like to see Grex
continue to have its own separate space.
|
gregc
|
|
response 145 of 269:
|
May 18 12:55 UTC 1996 |
Jan, I disagree with your statements in #142. You are completely
neglecting human nature. People tend to forget. New people tend to replace
old people, and people tend to take the path of least resistance and solve
a short term problem at the expense of a bigger long term loss.
It's *easy* for you to say "Oh, we won't be that stupid 5 years down",
from your vantage point at this moment in time. Like I said, this is not
something that would happen abrutly or obviously, it's something that
*could* happen gradually.
It similiar to why people ardently protect the concept of free speech by
defending something that, even though they find it personally offensive,
they would rather have that then allow the door to crack open a little
for the censors. They realize that the process is on-going and evolutionary
and you can't even allow it to get started.
Now I hear your next line: "There's a big difference between the first
amendment and Grex/mnet sharing office space." Of course there is, I'm
just making an analogy. However, you should *never* underestimate humanity's
ability to forget. It will get you in trouble all the time.
I'm also not implying that we would "pick up the infection", I think that's
not likely. What I think *is* possible, is that we could find ourselves
in a position where we could no longer make decisions autonomously and
would require the approval or agreement of the mnet board.
|
steve
|
|
response 146 of 269:
|
May 18 17:46 UTC 1996 |
I don't think its worth discussing much, beccause I don't think
most of the active membership would go for it.
Better by far to keep the two systems wholely seperate.
Think of the recent Chinet fire, and what would happen to the
conferencing users in Ann Arbor happened, in the join Grex/M-Net
room.
|
srw
|
|
response 147 of 269:
|
May 18 18:52 UTC 1996 |
In general if Grex found a partner that we could
share space with and save costs, like for instance the combining of Grex and
HVCN that we talked about last year as the WIN project, that it would be
reasonable to consider. Basically, I agree with Jan, not STeve or Greg.
I definitely don't buy the "slippery slope" argument, and I don't even
understand why Kerouac thinks we should combine Boards. That's absurd.
But if we could share rent, why shouldn't we? The decision to share more
stuff would have to be made independently. If we can't agree to share an
inet connection, for some of the fundamentally sound reasons that Greg
explained, I don't understand why that makes it a bad idea to share the rent.
I have always favored collaboration, and I won't stop now.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 148 of 269:
|
May 19 11:28 UTC 1996 |
Rent of a space could be shared without providing physical access to
one system by the other. The common disaster question could be addressed
by planning and provision for a hot or warm backup site. Obviously this
is not something to dive into headfirst without careful thought and
planning, but it does seem to be worth applying some thought and
logic to the idea. There is some sign of movement on Arbornet toward
the realization that the world is not flat. Gregc's post makes a good
checklist for finding solutions. It is ok to "parade the horribles", but don't
just stop there. Keep an open mind to real solutions and alternatives. Who
knows you might come up with something that would be a real benfit. The first
step would be to find people on both sides that will start talking to
each other without preconceptions of failure. "Us" talking and "them"
talking will go nowhere slowly. Having a physically and legally stable
site with adequate room, cooling, power, and access seems like a worthwhile
goal. Sharing rent might just be one way to get it done.
|
srw
|
|
response 149 of 269:
|
May 19 18:47 UTC 1996 |
Well, there does appear toe a substantial amount of internal disagreement
about sharing stuff. We should talk about it among ourselves first, and then
we can consider joint discussions (or bag the idea). There is a time for
everything.
|