response 150 of 184:

Jan 22 06:32 UTC 1995

re #149 - Where did that 2nd paragraph come from? You know darn
good and well that I didn't "encourage not voting." As well as you
know that I work AT elections. And a VLarge part of that work has
to do with +maintaining and assuring+ that the privacy of an
individual vote/voter CANNOT be compromised - by anyone.
  
That is teh principle of privacy (in a democracy) that needs to
be maintained despite the onslaught of technocracy and technology,
the privacy of the ballot.  
  
That appears, to me, to be rather tradition-bound. 
  
What is it about lobbying for a truly secret ballot, and makking
it a campaign plank, that describes "a different staff<-> board
relationship than currently exists?"
  
If you are, and continue to, see other's viewpoints and diffuse
conflicts, then you and others may see that a opportunity has arisen
to work toward a consensus, if possible, and +if+ privacy of
voting is controversial, to have this viewpoint brought to the
attention of the voters, and membership, to decide publically.
  
And, since I would be only a single board vote, there is not an
opportunity for a "majority" of one carrying Grex or the Board
somewhere it is unwilling to go. 
  
 [[side note, fyi: as a board member my board votes +must+
                be public, as I see it ]]
  
REgarding project(s), I wasn't thinking, particularily, about
a number-two, but, having had the question put .... I guess
that getting a few more bucks for Grex to work with is wholly
worthwhile for a Board project.
  
And a third project +could be+ to develop a volunteer coordinator
sort of position (loosely defined) that would honor the offers
of volunteerism more often than it would reject them. Such a 
change would go a long way toward building a more fruitful
community I think. And it reinforces the concept of "from each
according to ability" rather then "only from those with the
most ability."
  
'Nuff fer now, we have a move to do in a few hours ... see ya there.
  

response 152 of 184:

Jan 23 17:16 UTC 1995

I reluctantly agree with Andy, though I can't *imagine* what prompted
that thought. In regard to the secret ballot: the voting program could
offer an "I'm done" option, so that those that wish can move their vote
into the totally secret but unchangeable category, even if others want
to waffle up to the last moment ;->.

response 154 of 184:

Jan 24 02:49 UTC 1995

        I'm afraid I don't see why the advantages of messing with the
voting programwould maintain the disadvantages.  It is very useful at
times for people to be able to change their votes.  This discussion we are
having right now is a very good example of that -- some peoople have
already voted and may see something in this discussion that might make them
reconsider.  I, for one, would think it was a serious problem if that was
taken away.
        The real issue here is trust.  Unfortunately, Grex will not run
itself.  For Grex to run well, some people have to be given root.  Not
only can people who have root look at votes, they could even change votes.
In addition to that, they can also look at peoples' personal files, or
read peoples' mail, as well as just about anything else you could think of
that would either violate privacy or be destructive.  If anybody who
couldn't be trusted had root, the voting would be the least of our
worries.  The key to assuring voting privacy, as well as any other kind of
system security, is to have roots that can be trusted.  Right now, Grex
has roots who can be trusted.  That's not likely to be changed anytime soon.

response 156 of 184:

Jan 24 05:34 UTC 1995

If anybody can do something, roots can do it, I think.  Fortunately, with
Grex's current group of roots, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

response 158 of 184:

Jan 24 11:22 UTC 1995

Gadflies can be either good or bad.  A good gadfly can bring in new
ideas and problems that can benefit the system.  A bad gadfly can
distract people with trivial problems and delay, or even stall,
important work with these trivialities.

As Steve points out, this system runs on trust.  A root person wrote and
installed the vote program, which manipulates a data file that root can
read or modifiy.  In essence, TS is saying that root can't be trusted,
therefore, the people with root should change the program in such a way
that even the people with root can't change the program.  This is a
nonsensical request, on the surface of it.  But deeper down, it also
indicates a more fundemental problem; what TS has asked for is almost
like that famous question--"have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

So, yes, with this one campaign plank, TS is certainly making a pretty
strong statement regarding his opinion of staff.  Other board members
might decide to take TS's election as a serious indication regarding
membership's trust in staff, and so yes, that could lead to a
significant shift in board<->staff relationships.

I don't like to bring up history, but there are additional things that
ought to be mentioned.  For instance, grex has on & off had "problem
users", that we've had to deal with.  That ranges all the way from
people who crack root, to people who make rude comments.  Grex has
generally always had a non-confrontational "how can we make this better"
sort of approach.  It seems incredibly wimpy, but in practice, it has
been remarkably successful in terms of keeping problems to a minimum.
At one board meeting, the subject of one of these users came up, and
apparently this user made TS's blood boil, for he spent about 15 minutes
passionately promoting an extremely draconian "solution" to the problem.
In fact, the problem person had made plenty of other enemies, and there
were other board members whose opinion of the problem person was, if
anything, lower than that of TS's.  Nevertheless, calmer heads
prevailed, and I believe the actual solution we implemented was
"nothing".  This in fact worked remarkably well, so much so that in
recent conversation with somebody, I couldn't even correctly recall
which problem person it had been.  We all make mistakes.  In matters of
judgement, it's often hard to tell what's right & wrong.  Nevertheless,
I still remember how extremely pissed TS seemed to be that his lead was
not followed, and I would not care to see TS in the position of being
able to decide or influence how to deal with problem persons.

Another point of history that deserves mention is, TS once had root on
grex, and was a full fledged staff person.  He does not have root today.
Basically, most of the time, he was fine.  But he had just enough odd
and repeated "lapses" that he made every other staff person nervous.  We
were worried about his ability to make a good backup of grex without
crashing grex, and we were kind of worried about his ability to deal
with stress without flipping out.  We agonized over him for quite a bit,
but in the end, the decision was quite simple: for the good of grex we
decided TS should not have root.  This incident has haunted
staff<->board relations ever since.  It seems possible this incident is
also coloring TS's current perception of staff.

TS is also well known in many other community organizations, and people
tend to have strong opinions.  Perhaps the most accessible such
organization is m-net.  Old time staff/board members on m-net will
certainly remember TS.  TS apparently has been or is still a member of
at least two local area computer rehabilitation groups, talking to
members of both groups might yield additional data points.  TS has also
been a member of other local organizations, so there should be plenty of
background to find.  If you do find negative material, and decide that
TS or others deserve to hear it here or elsewhere, I ask that you also
find positive material, and share that also at the same time.

TS in fact has many sterling qualities, and even people who have bad
things to say of TS can often find things about TS that they admire.  TS
has, for instance, done much to make old computer equipment work for
many people, and is extraordinarily patient and helpful with newcomers
to computing.  Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about TS's
judgement and sense of priorities.  Since that is one of the main
functions of the board, I would urge anyone who is thinking of voting
for TS to get all the facts, to understand both sides of any story, and
to be sure they know just who TS is, before voting for him.  A
"Difference" is not a sufficient excuse for voting for someone.
Remember that famous adage, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get
it."

response 160 of 184:

Jan 24 16:37 UTC 1995

It decidedly was not.

response 162 of 184:

Jan 24 17:45 UTC 1995

I don't like negative campaigning in government elections and I 
sure hope Grex can avoid such rhetoric here.  There are two sides
to every story - always.  Besides, negative campaigning often
results in a voter backlash.  And it should.

response 164 of 184:

Jan 24 18:30 UTC 1995

Whether TS ever had root access or not does in no way make him disqualified
to sit on the board. Just because he had access that he doesn't now, 
doesn't mean he can't be a good board person. Staff is bound to have to deal
with people on the board they don't like, and perhaps they should getzV~r
used to the idea right now.

        Pattie

response 166 of 184:

Jan 25 02:47 UTC 1995

In Sault Ste. Marie, we have a commissioner who is a gadfly, "good," or
"bad" edpending on whom you talk to.  I don't always agree with her opinions
but I admire her for her stand and opinions.  Before she was elected, the
commision was an old boys network and mutual admiration society.  She has
been the vanguard many times for the public, not for the commision.  I have 
never doubted her sincere desire to help our community to become a better 
place to live.  That is the question to be answered about TS.

response 168 of 184:

Jan 25 11:04 UTC 1995

I don't believe it's ever possible to be informed on something, without
also being biased.  I regret the necessity to say what I said, and wish
they could have been kept private.  But campaigning for a public office
as TS has done, with the campaign issues TS raised, I felt it was
*Necessary* that the voters here be fully informed.  This is also about
the only circumstance I would have cared to publicize most of those
facts.  I made every effort to present facts that were known to me,
relevant to grex, and known to other grex members; that could be quickly
corrected by those other people if I was in any way misreporting or
garbling any facts.  I stated the truth to the best of my ability, and I
stand by my words.

I do no doubt, for a moment, TS's sincere desire and intention to help
make Grex become a better place.  He has, in the past, worked hard on
many things.  I believe TS and I share many ideals, even if we have a
very different sense of priorities and how to get things done.  The
world is not a black and white thing, and TS is not a bad person.

Basically, TS is applying for a "Job" here.  (Actually, Someone Else
recommended him for the job - so don't blame TS here!  I'm sure the
nominator didn't intend it so, but I think it works out to have been a
very tragic act.)  An applicant for a private job goes through an
assessment process wherein the candidate's good and bad points, and the
job's duties and responsibilities, are measured.  A candidate for a
public office goes through the same process, except it's called an
election.  Steve is right, the duties of a board member differ
considerably; that TS with root scares staff is not in itself the least
bit relevant.  Rane with root would scare me too.  Being on the board is
not a technical job, but a people schmooing job.  That is, working with
staff, other board members, the membership, the user base, and other
outside organizations to get things done.  There is (again, IMHO) no
question but that TS is a highly talented and idealistic person.  There
is (again, IMHO) no question but that TS has managed to powerfully piss
off some persons.  It is NOT up to TS, or any of the current candidates,
to reveal negative data.  But we, the voters, as the prospective
employers, owe it to *ourselves* and *this system* to get the bad data
with the good data.  Most of that data is already known to "the good old
boys".  Much of the damage of the truth ("IMHO") is already done.  By
placing that data before the public eye, I give newcomers access to data
that otherwise only the "good old boys" will know, and I give TS the
ability to defend himself, in public, an opportunity he would otherwise
completely lack.

Pattie talked about "staff liking the board" -- call me old fashioned,
but I would like to think we can disagree without being uncivil to each
other.  I do, in fact, sometimes disagree with what the board decides,
but I still like each board member, past and present, and I would like
to think the feeling is reciprocated.  Personally, I hope personal
animosity will never become a fixture of board meetings.  Indeed, I feel
sure that it will never become a fixture of staff<->board relationships:
a staff member that felt that unappreciated will certainly resign, and
the real issue is whether the board can get along with itself and
attract and maintain the loyalty of a dedicated group of trustworthy
volunteers.

In the end, it's up to each voter to individually decide what
qualifications are important, which candidates best match those
qualifications, and to vote for those candidates.

Other randomness: I admit it, *I* didn't vote in the last board election
either.  Not because I felt it was important not to vote, but because I
couldn't get enough data, in time, to decide who to vote for! I've lost
an board election, somewhere in the distant past.  I remember it hurt.
But I still don't feel too bad about it; it gave me time for other
activities, gave other people a chance to be on the board, and I believe
it was the healthiest thing for the system and for myself.  I know what
it feels like to be picked upon, because I've been picked upon.  I
learned to value the truth up front, above all else, out of that.  It
may not look like it, but I have learned a lot from Mary over the years,
and I treasure what I have learned.  I do hope she'll continue to find
time to be a part of Grex, and to watch and see what it turns into.  I
remember her saying, time and time again, "let's just wait and see what
happens", and sounding excited about the prospect, *Especially* whenever
things looked dark and gloomy.  I remember being disappointed that in
the last election Pattie didn't get elected.  I think she would have
brought some very interesting divergent opinions into the Grex board,
including many not represented by any of the current board candidates.
Speaking of the current board candidates, I am also proud that they
have, in fact, not resorted to mudslinging, but have maintained a
uniformly wonderful public and private profile.  That's true of *all* of
them, *including* TS.  I am also proud and happy to see new people
coming in and *participating* here.  New people are the life, the blood,
and the soul of this system; without new people always, the ideals this
system was founded upon will wither and die.

response 170 of 184:

Jan 25 20:09 UTC 1995

I'm glad to see some discussion of the candidates,  perhaps only me,
but discussion nonetheless.
  
Repeating myself, again, and again; nothing I have said, or implied
has *ever* negated or impuned the trustworthiness or calibre or
quality of board or staff, nothing. The statement: "In essence, 
TS is saying that root can't be trusted, therefore ..." is in absolute 
error in fact, an error in judgment and an error as a conclusion. 

Statements of that ilk are great red herrings, but that's about all.
And further in that graph, another baseless extrapolation rears
its head at the end. The fundamental problem is that I can't discern
any sort of rational connection between the two.
  
It might need to be noted that I understand what mdw believes
and also that mdw and I have never had much more than a half a
conversation between us so his opinions are 2nd hand at best. I
have wanted to talk longer with him, but he seems to be in a
wonderful head-space every time I see him and doesn't want to
be disturbed. That's a characteristic I would attach to an
engrossed intellectual working through a problem. I get that way
myself, but most likely not on as deep a level as his. 
its head at the end. The fundamental problem is that I can't discern
any sort of rational connection between the two.

rcurl's #152 has offered an idea that is consistant, and progressive
on the voting issue, obviously synthesyzed from these profitable
discussions. There's more than The One True Way to get things done.

Discovering Other True Ways doesn't come from a primordal soup, it
comes from ideas and discussions being batted around, examined, 
challanged, and reinforced by interesting and interested people.
   
Grex is that group, as I see it.  
  
I have been on staff and had root at one time. I no longer have
either position. There was a seriously unfortunate juxtiposition
of words and situations which had *no* relation to each other that
were tossed into the same bag. That bag got sealed and there was
no recourse permitted to sort out the mistakes. Oh, well.
  
And one time I did put Grex +near+ the edge, oh, yes. Not over,
just near. I certainly recognized that and the +potential+ for
going over. Grex did NOT go over the edge. I was faced with a
time limit for gettng out of CE, pulling Grex back from the edge
and leaving it fully operational. The burden was on my shoulders.
I performed certain tasks, many for the very first time, with only
book-learning and synthesis/analysis and experience on my side.
  
Frankly, no punches pulled, I was nervous and concerned. However
my "ability to deal with stress and not flip out" was never in
question to me. Instantly, it was a VBig thing; in the scheme
of BThings, it was minor. I got right to it, did what was necessary
and held my breath. Grex breathed! Phew! Close call. No apparent
degradation of service. I still wasn't certain enough in my own
mind (at that time) to be completely relieved though. steve visited
Grex and then me for a long, and I thought valuable, discussion.
  
[there existed a possibility (not probablilty) of invoking a
convoluted procedure to reach steve but not in time]

My pov was focused on a single issue at that point, just one: was
there any damage to Grex that I was responsible for? After some
chit-chat, and I had to pose the question twice, steve told me
that (approx paraphrase) " no, i looked around and could find
nothing you did that was wrong bringing grex back up."
  
                P * H * E * W  !!!!!!!
  
Yes, the backup scheduled for that day wasn't done, but there was
no damage! In the realm of experiences and education this one
was a goodie, it turned out positive. I wasn't a hero, NOR was
I the goat. Knowing what had gone wrong, I +anticipated+ running
backups in a day or two. (I told steve that my *scheduling*
was erratic, but apparently he missed the word "*scheduling*" even
to this day.)
  
steve was understandable nervous and I guess with some discussion
with other staff decided to remove me from root. But then, adding
to that action, it was later decided to remove me from staff too! The
second decision was, imo, an intentional slap in the face. 
That's just not the way to react to a dedicated and involved
volunteer who just passed through the fires of hell and survived.
It is also no way to capitalize on the experience and sudden
education of a new (real new) staff member.  But I'm not the boss.
  
Thre were a bunch of other functions as root and/or staff that
worked out quite well for all of us, and relieved much of the
burden on the existing, miniscule and diminishing staff at that time.
  
In this environment I considered steve as a "big brother" and maybe
there isn't time for him to do that anymore. I lose again. It's
not his job either, just something that seemd to have been offered
so maybe I projected a bit, sorry steve.
  
That's about enough for now, some other points might need addressing
later. Oh, by the way, *IF* there had ever been a "trust staff"
problem, I would have been out of here at a rate of approximately
nine inches per nanosecond. 

response 172 of 184:

Jan 26 07:02 UTC 1995

"Rane with root would scare me too." Ditto. 

Steve, see #152 for how those that want a secret ballot can have it
without denying others the power to change their vote when they want.
The only moment that the vote would not be secret for the former is during
the act of voting. This is "more secret" than the present system.

response 174 of 184:

Jan 26 21:09 UTC 1995

To make an historical analogy, the writers of the Constitution trusted
themselves, and Washington, whom they knew would be elected President, but they
put checks and limits on the office of President b/c tehy knew that Washington
would not be the ONLY President.