|
Grex > Coop13 > #360: Member initative: Allow members to host images | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 182 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 150 of 182:
| 
Sep 24 13:08 UTC 2006 |
I support the idea that we keep grex access as level as possible between
members and nonmembers.
|
remmers
|
|
response 151 of 182:
|
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.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 152 of 182:
|
Sep 24 14:25 UTC 2006 |
I'm curious: why shouldn't it be repeated?
|
tod
|
|
response 153 of 182:
|
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.
|
scholar
|
|
response 154 of 182:
|
Sep 24 16:25 UTC 2006 |
Members are already given additional services, and this would be no different.
The money members donate helps Grex provide services to both members and
non-members.
|
cross
|
|
response 155 of 182:
|
Sep 24 16:55 UTC 2006 |
Again, it's ultimately a cultural issue: should grex provided extended
services to its users?
|
mary
|
|
response 156 of 182:
|
Sep 24 17:04 UTC 2006 |
My opinion is no. The reasons have all been stated, repeatedly.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 157 of 182:
|
Sep 24 19:04 UTC 2006 |
Mary: Where?
|
mary
|
|
response 158 of 182:
|
Sep 24 20:18 UTC 2006 |
Dont' make me go back and list the item numbers. Pleeeeaaase.
|
cross
|
|
response 159 of 182:
|
Sep 24 20:18 UTC 2006 |
Do it!
|
krj
|
|
response 160 of 182:
|
Sep 25 13:47 UTC 2006 |
I haven't got any references located on Grex, but the standard history
of M-net and Grex, by Jan Wolter, contains the following in its
account of the origins of Grex:
"They ((Grex)) abandoned the idea of offering extra dial-in
lines to paying members, not wanting privileged classes of users
on the system..."
http://unixpapa.com/conf/history.html
|
nharmon
|
|
response 161 of 182:
|
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?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 162 of 182:
|
Sep 25 15:00 UTC 2006 |
Apparently, grex "culture" is a very fragile thing.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 163 of 182:
|
Sep 25 15:04 UTC 2006 |
It would increase the gap between nonmember and member benefits.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 164 of 182:
|
Sep 25 16:29 UTC 2006 |
re 163: That is the main point, yes. Why is that bad?
|
tod
|
|
response 165 of 182:
|
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.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 166 of 182:
|
Sep 25 17:37 UTC 2006 |
Well put, Todd.
|
scholar
|
|
response 167 of 182:
|
Sep 25 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Re. 163: Yet there aren't enough people who need to use the dial-up lines
to support them. As long as increasing services to members also helps provide
services to non-members, which seems to be a necessity these days, I don't
see a problem with it.
|
tod
|
|
response 168 of 182:
|
Sep 25 18:53 UTC 2006 |
re #167
Check each proposal for ego bruising. Remember, everything was started
initially by someone and you're likely going to offend them by offering
logical improvements which clash with historical reverence. I'm guessing the
best way to actually get momentum on a "change" is to have the originator's
buy-off. Clue me in if I'm off base here.
|
naftee
|
|
response 169 of 182:
|
Sep 25 21:53 UTC 2006 |
re 150
Why not make GreX image hosting open to all, then ? We kill 2 birds with one
(kidney) stone !
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 182:
|
Sep 25 22:29 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #168; I'm beginning to form the opinion that #27 in garage is of
that nature.
|
keesan
|
|
response 171 of 182:
|
Sep 26 19:19 UTC 2006 |
I thought the extra member privileges were restricted to verified users to
prevent vandals from getting loose via grex.
|
cross
|
|
response 172 of 182:
|
Sep 26 19:22 UTC 2006 |
That's true. The question is whether to allow for extra "member perks" in
hopes of bringing in new members.
|
aruba
|
|
response 173 of 182:
|
Sep 26 22:49 UTC 2006 |
It's quite correct that the philosophy of keeping the gap between members
and nonmembers is not written in stone. The membership can vote to add
services for members if it wants to. So I'm for voting on this, to see how
the membership feels. But we need some more members to endorse taking it to
a vote.
A number of people keep making noises to the effect that new ideas are being
repressed by "the man", or "the inner circle", or whatever; that's clearly
not the case here. All it will take is for 6 members to endorse bringing
the proposal to a vote, and we'll vote on it. If you're a member and want
that, say so. If you're not a member but want that, consider becoming a
member.
|
cross
|
|
response 174 of 182:
|
Sep 26 23:04 UTC 2006 |
(Of course, as the number of members goes up, the number of people required
to endorse the proposal goes up proportionately. In this case, that probably
won't matter.)
|