|
Grex > Coop8 > #83: "All ports are busy" vs. A countdown-- which is better? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 196 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 125 of 196:
| 
Jul 19 23:21 UTC 1996 |
Re 123 - I expect M-Net's resurrection has something to do with that.
We should check again around 3 AM and see what the queue looks like
then.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 126 of 196:
|
Jul 20 01:43 UTC 1996 |
I cannot believe how much rubish one has to sit through before one
finshes this item.. and that, even after limiting it to the responses of
the last few days! Perhaps if the responses where new or interesting
points, they would be less troublesome to have to wade through.
There seems to be an unfortunate pattern here- it seems, after
one or two valid responses, kerouac begins to simply repeat himself, as
oblivious to other's viewpoints as he claims they are to his. So, the
rest of the folks here, who generally wish to get on and make progress in
this discussion, feel obliged to reply to kerouac's redundancies.
Naturally, their efforts cause kerouac to repeat himself once more, and
on it goes. Finally, oh say right about now, _I_ come along and feel
obligated, with no humor at all, to ask that we make an attempt to go
against every second of grex's history and actually BAN a user for his
idiocy-
kerouac.
Yes, I am serious. Richard, in my opinion seriously degrades the
quality of this system, and as a threat to grex's future, he should have
all access from his Washington DC ISP to here eliminated.
Now, Richard, as this is my opinion, it is as valid as any of
yours. Only I will preserve its importance by repeating it little, if ever.
My point has been made to all, and they m,ay do with it as they wish.
Good night.
|
brighn
|
|
response 127 of 196:
|
Jul 20 03:52 UTC 1996 |
In reference to another item in Coop, Crhsitopher>
Kerouac is a twit. Learn to ignore him,. I have. The result is that any
time he DOES make a good point, I don't see, because all I see 99% of the time
is #nn of nn: by Richard Wallner (kerouac)
and that's enough for me to know not to bother with it.
His fault, he abused his rights and I choose to ignore him.
As to the queue report, I logged on around 11:30. No queue.
The MNetters seem to have scared a lot of the problem Indians away, and then
went back to MNet. Oh joy! Oh rapture!
(Disclaimer: There are constructive users who prefer MNet and come here only
when MNet is down. There are constructive users from India. I am referring
specifically and only to the problem users from both sources.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 128 of 196:
|
Jul 20 07:06 UTC 1996 |
<<this town is too big for only 1 system ... >>
outspoken ppl tend to refine their concerns over a series of responses
neither kerouac nor brighn (or anyone else for that matter) has 'abused
their right' (imo). rewording, refining, clarifying, (learning) and all
that stuff simply canNOT occur in a single response.
and on the same concept --- it has been reiterated (#122, 1st 'graph, thank
you) that the *original* motivation for a change was to ?substitute? something
less resource intensive than telnetd for massive numbers of incoming telnet
requests. the desired results were to be less load for the current crop of
logins.
if that is essentialy correct - a higher percentage of resources avaialable
due to fewer telentd processes running - is there a *differnt* way to
accompish that specific goal withOUT either a queue or a "latch-hold-release"
in operation?
i certainly agree with the singular first goal, and wonder if too much
was attempted - more than necessary, if you will - by adding either
the latch-hold-release or the queue?
|
srw
|
|
response 129 of 196:
|
Jul 20 11:21 UTC 1996 |
Well I think Christopher has overstated the "Kerouac" problem a bit.
My personal opinion is that Kerouac is not actually a threat to Grex.
He does seem to generate a lot of random ideas. I wish more of them were
less random. I wish he wouldn't repeat them so often. I have caught
myself repeating myself in response to a repeat of his. I know we do this,
and it is not productive. The above is just my personal observations.
I **really** wish he would use "gate".
|
adbarr
|
|
response 130 of 196:
|
Jul 20 11:51 UTC 1996 |
Assuming Grex banned kerouac ( a move I don't support at all), who is next
on the list? If such a "policy" were to be implemented it would be
nice if there could be a list of approved subjects for conversation,
as well as a "style" manual for everyone to follow. I don't always
follow, or agree with, things Richard says here, but he has never
seemed like any kind of threat to this or any other system. He does
seem to pull some chains now and then, which is not all bad. I gather
sidhe had a bad day?
|
davel
|
|
response 131 of 196:
|
Jul 20 16:17 UTC 1996 |
Hmm. So after kerouac has slowly strangled coop for, what, a couple of
years now? by hijacking most of the attempts at rational discussion, we
should accelerate the process by debating *this* for a while? Bleah.
|
brighn
|
|
response 132 of 196:
|
Jul 20 16:36 UTC 1996 |
*brighn glares at TSTY* IT was Christopher's idea, not mine, so why do you
mention me and not him?
*smiles perkily at Dave* Sure, Dave, why not? =}
|
scg
|
|
response 133 of 196:
|
Jul 20 18:04 UTC 1996 |
re 129:
But staff didn't have board approval to install gate. ;)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 134 of 196:
|
Jul 20 18:43 UTC 1996 |
sheesh, I dont think I've been hijacking coop at all...go back and read the
messages in this edition and find out how many items Im dominating...I'm
not even IN a majority of them. I dont know what sidhe's problem is, and I
wish I knew since I was probably the only user here who thought he would've
made a good board member (though I cant vote and even if I could it wouldnt
have kept him out of last place) But Brighn seems to be one of those folks
who either *likes* or *hates* everyone. He has had more disputes with more
individual users than probably anybody else who has every used this board.
Brighn would oppose something simply and for no other reason than that I
support it (at least on system issues)
I dont go out of my way to insult people, I never called Brighn or Sidhe twits
or names or anything. Such name-calling isnt productive. I was raising valid
points and wasnt satisfied that because relative responses might have been
entered in other items, that meant those questions didnt need to be answered
directly here and in the context of this debate.
Is the board's rationale that if something doesnt involve money, they shouldnt
be involved? I thought the function of the board was to oversee the activity
of staff and the maintenance of grex. Board members should want to have a say
in software installations. Not little upgrades but when entire new programs
are written that could potentially change the nature of grex.
Maybe what is needed is a separate item on Board responsibility, but since I've
already entered exactly ONE item (this one) in the current coop and have
already been accused of hijacking it I guess someone else should enter it.
|
ajax
|
|
response 135 of 196:
|
Jul 20 19:01 UTC 1996 |
(I'm surprised to learn that Richard's .cfonce already has gate
installed. I guess the 80+ character lines are added in an editor.)
|
scott
|
|
response 136 of 196:
|
Jul 20 19:15 UTC 1996 |
Er, kerouac, perhaps you should look into *why* Grex has a board in the first
place...
|
adbarr
|
|
response 137 of 196:
|
Jul 20 23:22 UTC 1996 |
Usually, a board proposes and authorizes, and a staff disposes and implements?
Is that how it works?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 138 of 196:
|
Jul 21 00:10 UTC 1996 |
not THIS board certainly...this board doesnt want to propose anything
|
tsty
|
|
response 139 of 196:
|
Jul 21 02:00 UTC 1996 |
that's a flatly false statement!
|
kerouac
|
|
response 140 of 196:
|
Jul 21 02:33 UTC 1996 |
well not anything that doesnt involve a deduction from the
checkbook. Hell, I'd support paying marcus $1 dollar for writing the que
program (surely grex can afford a dollar) just to justify the board's
involvment in the decision over whether to implement
|
kerouac
|
|
response 141 of 196:
|
Jul 21 02:45 UTC 1996 |
I mean just exactly what sort of software decision WOULD the board
get involved in? I mean if a couple of members of staff wanted to
dump picospan in favor of some new conferencing setup, and did so,
would the board not say "whoaa!" and "let's vote on this", even if
no money would be changing hands.
It just seems like there should be some sort of protocol somewhere,
because clearly there are times when the board should be involved.
Yet currently the sentiment seems to be, "we dont want to get
involved in anything unless the treasurer needs to cut a check or else
we just happen to feel like it"
|
ajax
|
|
response 142 of 196:
|
Jul 21 04:59 UTC 1996 |
The matter was brought to the attention of the board. My feeling is
that the board should become involved when it seems the board and
staff are in disagreement over an issue. In this case, the board was
apprised of the change, and it was generally supported. If any member
feels that the staff or board aren't representing the wishes of the
membership, and discussion isn't going anywhere, they can request a
membership-wide vote on an issue.
|
scg
|
|
response 143 of 196:
|
Jul 21 05:00 UTC 1996 |
If the board thinks there's a problem with things, I'm sure we will get
involved. For the most part, we trust the staff to make software decisions,
and to come to us if they have any questions. I think staff would recognize
if a change were big enough that they needed toget the board involved, and
would ask the board. If staff didn't, I'm sure the board would get involved
anyway. Speaking both as a staff member and as a board member, I don't feel
this is a situation the board needs to be involved in.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 144 of 196:
|
Jul 21 05:50 UTC 1996 |
I tallied up the number of responses everybody has made in coop. There are
129 people who have responded in coop. Here's the list of the top 20.
The first column is the number of responses that person has made. The
second column is their UID number (the way I counted responses, it was
easier to leave it in than to take it out) and the third column is login
ID. It does seem to answer the question of whether or not kerouac is
dominating the coop conference.
409 ,U9304,kerouac
354 ,U1827,rcurl
353 ,U112,popcorn
347 ,U18753,adbarr
326 ,U7818,brighn
309 ,U1515,robh
303 ,U28471,scott
302 ,U110,steve
301 ,U2386,janc
286 ,U1981,srw
281 ,U1577,tsty
254 ,U1831,scg
225 ,U2660,carson
222 ,U5106,ajax
182 ,U121,remmers
169 ,U1681,davel
153 ,U111,chelsea
144 ,U13455,nephi
128 ,U500,gregc
98 ,U60,cfadm
|
chelsea
|
|
response 145 of 196:
|
Jul 21 12:30 UTC 1996 |
Maybe some of what is nagging folks here is not that they
don't trust the Board and the staff but there they can't
really see much difference between areas of responsibility.
And a good part of that might be that a whole lot of the
Board is made up of staff. What percentage is it?
Anyhow, I have no suggestion for getting around this one
except maybe it would be something folks should keep in
mind, when voting between two otherwise equal candidates.
|
scott
|
|
response 146 of 196:
|
Jul 21 12:43 UTC 1996 |
I tend to view the board as a necessary evil... we have to have one, due to
incorporation requirements.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 147 of 196:
|
Jul 21 12:45 UTC 1996 |
(shudder)
I tend to think of the members and the Board working together
to manage Grex.
|
robh
|
|
response 148 of 196:
|
Jul 21 13:50 UTC 1996 |
Five of the current seven Board members are also on staff.
|
mdw
|
|
response 149 of 196:
|
Jul 21 14:06 UTC 1996 |
I agree with scott's view of it. The human tendency is to magnify the
importance of a board; people not on the board start blaming the board
for all sorts of imagined evils, and the board reciprocates in kind.
Real human beings flee in terror from serving on the board, to be
replaced by various kinds of power trippers, and things can get terribly
weird. You can already see this human tendency at work here; some
people are already ready to shift the responsibility for making many
kinds of decisions off the membership and onto the board, are inventing
many kinds of evils for the board to have done, and are even willing to
hand the board tools with which to secure and reinforce their power.
Scary, huh?
Personal attacks are boring. I'd much rather see the awful login screen
change to the coop cf.
So far as paying me $1 to work on the queing system, I see. If the
intent here is to trap me in some kind of unspecified and vague
contractual arrangement, the terms of which I might not either like or
agree to (which seems to be the drift), then in all fairness, I would
have to refuse it. It's not enough to pay me for the trouble of doing
something I wouldn't like, the only thing such an arrangement would
demonstrate is that the board didn't trust me, and my experience with
vague contracts with people you don't trust, is inevitably that somebody
is out to shaft somebody, and the only thing the contract guarantees is
much unhappiness.
|