response 143 of 183:

Sep 23 00:23 UTC 2006

re 129 You think about it, you bum.

People are going to FTP stuff to GreX, images or otherwise, regardless of
whether or not you've deleted it from another user's disk space.

If you delete someone's file, chances are they'll upload it again because they
won't know why it was deleted; thereby giving you two uploads for the price
of one.

Quotas are what prevent users from uploading massively huge files and taking
up disk space.  If you're worried about someone who never logs in yet has
filled up their allowable space, just reap their account.

It's not a case of "I'm the only one who really cares about GreX.  Why won't
you listen to me?"  Get over yourself.  

response 145 of 183:

Sep 23 13:04 UTC 2006

STeve and Dan, I'm here, I've been listening.  At this point it looks
as if the opinions have been clearly stated and all that's left is 
the digging in part.  

But know that I've read it all and appreciate the time both of you
have put into the discussion.

response 147 of 183:

Sep 23 15:20 UTC 2006

I'm here too. Reading, cogitating, mulling things over.  Both Dan and STeve
have provided at great deal of information that I find sometimes too
technical, but always informative.  

I don't see consensus on this emerging.  I havent gone back to scan the
entries, but I'm not even sure we have sufficient support to take this to a
vote.  

My current stance is not to support the proposal.  However, limiting the
images to members makes many of the "we're going to be overwhelmed" arguments
moot, if there is a way to stop the uploads (use of bandwidth) before they
get to nonmember storage space.  I understand the maxing out our current level
of paid-for band width, and really, really don't want to up our costs.

It seems to me the question IS a cultural one.  Do we want to use member perks
as a marketing tool to attract new members?  Or do we want a system that tries
to provide an close-to-equal level of services for all users, whether or not
they have paid us money?  

The second question is a resources one.  If we DO want to start adding perks
for members, will it create so much confusion for nonmembers that our limited
staff resourses get diverted to even more garbage-clean-up tasks, picking up
after nonmembers?  And will the bandwidth used increase our monthly costs?

The third question is back to the cultural issue.  If we DO want to start
adding perks for members, will we lose any current members if we try this
experiment?  In other words, assume we try this, attract new members, but then
have to shut off the perk because we are overwhelmed.  Will we be worse off
than we are now because we lose not only the new members but some of our
current ones?  

My two cents.  (where did my cents key go? I lost it in the mid80s I think).

response 149 of 183:

Sep 24 04:49 UTC 2006

re 147 Bandwidth questions aside, why do you not support the proposal ?

response 151 of 183:

Sep 24 14:15 UTC 2006

Given that the proposal would limit image hosting to members, I'm not too 
worried that our bandwidth would be overwhelmed, or that "unsuitable" 
images would be a problem.  But I agree with Colleen's #150 and am in the 
krj telnet-for-members-is-an-historical-anomaly-that-shouldn't-be-repeated
camp.

response 153 of 183:

Sep 24 16:04 UTC 2006

I like the idea of extending additional services to paying members because
they're vetted and their money is appreciated.

response 155 of 183:

Sep 24 16:55 UTC 2006

Again, it's ultimately a cultural issue: should grex provided extended
services to its users?

response 157 of 183:

Sep 24 19:04 UTC 2006

Mary: Where?

response 159 of 183:

Sep 24 20:18 UTC 2006

Do it!

response 161 of 183:

Sep 25 13:58 UTC 2006

From the Grex membership FAQ (http://www.cyberspace.org/memfaq.html):

"Grex memberships are not contracts for services, they are donations.
Since Grex is run democratically, the BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP ARE DECIDED
BY THE MEMBERS. So far in Grex's history the membership has been very
conservative about changing Grex policy on things like membership
benefits, and it's likely that will continue to be so. But YOU SHOULD BE
AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE SO."

All I am looking for, are good reasons why it doesn't make sense to
provide Grex members more benefits, even if the same benefits can't be
given to non-members. Reasons that are similiar to "we've always done it
this way" are simply not good reasons in my opinion.

In other words, what would this hurt?

response 163 of 183:

Sep 25 15:04 UTC 2006

It would increase the gap between nonmember and member benefits.

response 165 of 183:

Sep 25 17:30 UTC 2006

Its not written in stone nor in the bylaws, right?  We, as members, could vote
on this as a change for the benefit of increasing membership to Grex.
I appreciate the "history" but I do not feel bound to it as a voting member.
I think extended services for members is a good idea.