|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 22 new of 171 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 150 of 171:
| 
Jan 8 06:19 UTC 1995 |
What Marc describes is better called the "volunteer veto", as it
permeates all volunteer activities. The members or board could
pass motions until they were blue in the face (!) but if there was
no one willing to carry them out, they would not be implemented.
This goes for the current discussions of a newsletter and a convention,
for example. The discussions have gotten as far as they have, of
course, because there appear to be volunteers to do the work - which
is great, for good ideas.
|
mdw
|
|
response 151 of 171:
|
Jan 8 07:48 UTC 1995 |
Actually, I looked into the network patch, and presumably by default
it's likely I'll be the person who does it, but it's been lower doesn in
the list of things to do than fixing newuser & sendmail, and at this
point it's probably queued up behind my office move, as well. (Sometime
in the next month, everything in my office has to gain about 12 feet in
altitude, and move about 20 feet north west.)
|
srw
|
|
response 152 of 171:
|
Jan 8 08:13 UTC 1995 |
I've talked with both Marcus and STeve about the changes in the kernel patches
required to honor the new policy. I am confident that the changes are
coming, and that there is no volunteer veto happening in this case.
Even if Marcus can't get to these, someone else will.
Several staff members are quite committed to seeing it happen, even if
one isn't.
|
andyv
|
|
response 153 of 171:
|
Jan 8 15:49 UTC 1995 |
So then, the staff is a group of people who are critical to Grex's operation
who have the power to stop things. I think they should transform themselves
into a leadership base concerning hardware and software goals. Rather than
having them being perceived as people who shoot down things, they should
be the first ones to recommend changes and additions which everyone else
can shoot at or add to. After a period of discussion, they should take
the innitiative to present the changes or additions to the board for a policy
decision.
|
danr
|
|
response 154 of 171:
|
Jan 8 15:56 UTC 1995 |
This is, in fact, what they do most of the time. They only "shoot down
things" when there is some technical reason or by default when they
simply don't have time to do something.
|
andyv
|
|
response 155 of 171:
|
Jan 8 16:41 UTC 1995 |
I am starting to think that we need a spin doctor. I'm not for spin doctors
who try to promote politicians in a pretentious way, I am for attempting
to convince the leaders here to communicate with a positive spin. There
are ways to argue and debate which leave the listeners with a sense of hope
for the future and a desire to participate. Sharp criticism can be absorbed
by at least acknowledging that the criticism is intended to help.
|
bartlett
|
|
response 156 of 171:
|
Jan 8 18:10 UTC 1995 |
Instead of "we can't" how about "This is what we'd have to do, shall we do
it?"
|
andyv
|
|
response 157 of 171:
|
Jan 8 23:16 UTC 1995 |
I like your style Chris :-)
|
mdw
|
|
response 158 of 171:
|
Jan 9 06:42 UTC 1995 |
You seem to be saying that staff should never oppose any project. As a
programmer, and a member of many projects in the past and present, some
of which failed and some of which succeeded, I can assure you one of the
quickest ways to disaster is to never say "no". In order to accomplish
anything, you *have* to realize your resources are limited, you have to
decide your goals, your priorities, and which things to work on.
I'm sure you didn't mean to say this; but as one of many staff members
who have put a lot of hard work into this system, you make me feel that
the hard work I've put in counts for naught, and only the work I didn't
do and might not even agree with, counts. That's certainly a no win
situation; and I don't know anyone who would choose to work for such a
boss.
You also seem to be saying staff should spend a higher percentage of its
energy on PR, and a lesser percentage on real work. That, too, seems a
pretty dangerous assertion. Selecting staff based on their ability to
sweet talk would certainly result in a large drop in real ability. I
know I already spend more of my time as a grex staff person trying to
"sweet talk" than I care to think about, and that it certainly cuts into
the time I could be spending doing real work for grex. I realize that
communications is worthwhile too, but I think there's a balance here,
and that if anything, it would worth shifting the balance to more work
and less talk.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 159 of 171:
|
Jan 9 07:21 UTC 1995 |
I undertood #155 to suggest that staff, and others, should at least
*talk* about any suggested project, at least until its angles and
alternatives get explored a bit.
|
tsty
|
|
response 160 of 171:
|
Jan 9 16:24 UTC 1995 |
And, when a someone *wants* to do some good for the system,
let them run with it as a project. Then pop back in with
the results for discussion.
|
bartlett
|
|
response 161 of 171:
|
Jan 9 16:26 UTC 1995 |
Re: 158, if you are responding to me, then you misunderstand me. I'm not
saying that we should ignore staff's technical input, but merely that
staff people shouldn't say no before putting on the table what we'd have
to do. And I don't consider changing the approach from no to "this is
what would have to happen" to be sweet-talking. It will be obvious in
some cases that what we have to do is impractical, at which point the
discussion will fade, or the idea be tabled for the future.
And if the staff can say an outright no, doesn't that put staff in a
policy-making role? Weren't we trying to avoid that?
|
andyv
|
|
response 162 of 171:
|
Jan 10 02:51 UTC 1995 |
Unfortunately the future is made of all the things we haven't done yet,
and for sure there haven't been enough thanks dealt out for things which
have been done. That is why I enjoyed the items I put together into that
article I posted in the news item.
People who have the power to say no need never say no in discussions. I don't
think power is a dirty word either. Power doesn't imply abuse of power.
The staff I'm sure has discussed the items here outside of these conferences.
That is ok with me because face to face discussion is more efficient. These
discussions are here to stimulate thought and reflection.
When I said "a positive spin," I didn't mean to imply the staff had to sweet-
talk anyone. the staff doesn't have to justify their actions either (even
though they might want to). They do what it takes to keep things running and
try to implement the policies of the board the best they can (I assume).
As the load grows on Grex, the staff are going to be called on to do more,
and we are going to face some tough policy decisions made by the board
whether we have a plan drawn up or not. The stress levels probably will
go sky high (as they have been at other community/internet systems).
Do we have the tenacity and commitment to hang in there through the tough
times heading our way?
Maybe becasue I come from a family which argues about everything for the
fun of it, none of this seems unusual ;-)
|
steve
|
|
response 163 of 171:
|
Jan 10 05:50 UTC 1995 |
I just caught up on this item after not reading it for about 3
weeks. About staff having a defacto "veto" ability: it is true, to
some extent. What we do is in part what we want to do as opposed to
other things/projects.
I made up my mind a while ago that I'm willing to do things in a
way different from what I personally wanted it to go, if I got a feeling
of consensus from others. The Internet usage vote is a case in point.
I've been the fog-horn for net overusage for a while now, and didn't really
want to see the outbound IP abilities of non-members opened up more than
it was already, but since it happened, I'll live with it.
I'm even willing to do the work to implement it, given that Marcus and
I have talked about it, and I know I can ask (read: pester) him about
things if need be. But, I've triaged it: I see other things as more important
to do right now, and have/am/will be doing those first. Once it becomes
possible to get to that, if Marcus or ? hasn't, then I'm willing to do that.
So I'm saying that I am willing to do things that I don't really personally
agree with, if that particular thing can be done without impacting other
things. I hope people don't see this as unfair.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 164 of 171:
|
Jan 10 06:37 UTC 1995 |
If everything were going swimmingly (hmm, maybe that's not a good
expression, with Grex moving to a basement), and the access policy
were not being implemented, one might see "foot dragging". However
with all the system problems we have been having, which I think take
priority, I'm willing to delay the policy implementation. So, while I'd
like to see the policy implemented ASAP, I would prefer it be implemented
on a well system, for a proper test of its consequences.
|
tsty
|
|
response 165 of 171:
|
Jan 10 15:04 UTC 1995 |
#163 is the response of a real professional.
|
kentn
|
|
response 166 of 171:
|
Jan 10 16:13 UTC 1995 |
Hear! Hear!
|
davel
|
|
response 167 of 171:
|
Jan 11 19:52 UTC 1995 |
It is still worth saying, though, that staff's veto power is a *very* limited
one, though very real as far as it goes. Unless some staff members turn into
vandals, for staff to exercise a real veto power would require complete
unanimity among staff (or those competent to do whatever we're talking about)
in their refusal to do it, *plus* complete unavailability of anyone both able
& willing to be added to staff to do it.
The ability to say no to at least some things one views as bad or merely
not worth while is part of being a volunteer. In any organization with
no paid staff, you sometimes have to round up the labor to do things that
others have decided should be done - & sometimes this proves impossible.
This has serious costs, but it's often a very good thing, and I think it
is in Grex's case in particular. In Grex's case (& often in volunteer
organizations), the people in question are committed to the organization
& its goals, to an extent that I'd say makes an organized boycott of
anything the board or membership were determined to demand really unlikely.
I for one would be adamantly opposed to any proposal that allowed
particular staff people to be directed to do some particular job, without
asking whether those particular people were willing. (In fact, I'll go
a lot farther: if Grex comes to the point where *none* of the people
technically able to do something are willing to do so, this is pretty
good evidence that the technically unable who make the demands don't
know what's what. But that's another question.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 168 of 171:
|
Jan 13 12:16 UTC 1995 |
It's called a "pocket veto" and it is quite powerful.
|
nephi
|
|
response 169 of 171:
|
Feb 9 10:14 UTC 1995 |
Where would I like to see Grex in one year?
Well, I really like what Grex has done for me in the past five months. It
has helped form some life philosophies. It has given me a more cosmipolitan
view of the world. It has introduced me to cultures completely foreign to
me. It has forced me to become at least a little computer literate and is
constantly encouraging me to become moreso. It gives me a place to test
my ideas and generally excersize my mind. It also does many more things
that I can't even begin to mention here (mostly for lack of memory at this
time of night 8*) ).
I really like what Grex has done for me, and I don't want to see any of
that ever go away. In addition, I want Grex to be able to do this for as
many people as possible. This means increasing bandwidth, upgrading cpu's,
etc., etc. I'm relatively sure that this will happen given what I know
about the board and staff. I have complete trust in their goodwill and
expertise, veto or not. I do know that they are way overtaxed, though.
I don't think that such an overtaxed staff can function forever, which is
one reason why we should institute some sort of training program. Another
reason is that training interested people to be staff is also of benifit
to the person being trained. I would love to know how to do what the
staff is able to do and feel that this knowledge can help me for the
rest of my life. One of Grex's purposed is to educate. I've heard people
talk of going out and educating others. Well, I think we can set up an
apprenticeship program right here, where we teach people all about
these kinds of systems. I see no downside to this and am eager to see
somthing implemented along these general lines.
These are really the two things I see in Grex. Community and education.
|
remmers
|
|
response 170 of 171:
|
Feb 9 12:00 UTC 1995 |
Re #169, first paragraph: If a large number of users feel the same
way, I'd say that grex is successfully fulfilling some important
original objectives. Thanks.
|
andyv
|
|
response 171 of 171:
|
Feb 9 17:51 UTC 1995 |
I certainly feel the same way :-)
|