response 150 of 220:

Jun 3 01:28 UTC 1995

        The basic problem with Arbornet and WIN is that Craig Plesco
(craig), the Arbornet President, absolutely *hates* WIN with a passion.
He applied for a separate Arbornet TIIAP grant without Board authority,
then when the Board passed a resolution of cooperation with WIN he
sent people a letter which stated the direct opposite.  He even tried
(unsuccessfully) to sabotage the creation of M-Net's WIN Conference.
        Maybe his mother was frightened by WIN.
        Since except for this "blind spot" craig is an excellent President,
many on M-Net are unwilling to cross him on this releatively minor
issue.
        A couple other Arbornet directors also have little use for WIN.
        I'd rather see Grexers participate in the existing M-Net WIN
Conference than create a separate one here because I'd like to see
lots of activity in the M-Net WIN Conference to show craig and the
other M-Netters who have concerns about WIN that there are *lots*
of WINners, and that we are here to stay.

response 152 of 220:

Jun 3 04:43 UTC 1995

        I've been reading this item as it's gone along.  I'm surprised and a
little chagrined to see that it's turning into a "Why isn't Arbornet in?"
item, with some bashing of Arbornet thrown in.  WIN is going to have to do
more than that if it's going to accomplish anything.  While I'm not
capable or authorized to explain why the Arbornet Board has refused to
involve itself more, I can promise you that bashing Arbornet is not going
to convince anyone over there that WIN is a good thing with many benefits
for Arbornet.
        Arbornet is not going to join WIN in the immediate future.  There are
some strong sentiments among the Board members that are preventing us from
doing so.  WIN is going to have to do it's initial development without
Arbornet.  If WIN develops into something valuable, that Arbornet can
benefit from joining, perhaps the opinion of the Board members will
change, or new Board members will come along who will want Arbornet to 
join WIN.  That will have to be left for the future.
        I am a Board member of Arbornet.  I have been a strong proponent of
WIN.  I haven't been strong enough.  I've lost this one for now, but I'll
be watching WIN, and if there's a chance of getting Arbornet into the
consortium later, I'll bring it up again then.

response 154 of 220:

Jun 3 18:49 UTC 1995

I am of the camp that believes that we should be discussing WIN on Grex,
too, and not just on Arbornet. Our WIN conference is waiting to be
linked to Arbornet's. Arbornet won;t let us do this. I have been logging
into M-Net at least once a week to follow and occasionally post there.
I will keep doing this, but I think we are doing Grexers a big disservice
by not opening up the discussion here.

I would prefer not to have two separate conferences, but I do not
see any way to avoid it any longer. I urge Valerie to post into
the WIN conference here so that it can begin.

response 156 of 220:

Jun 3 20:31 UTC 1995

I would prefer linked conferences - second choice is to have
two, so more will read, and hopefully participate.  I agree
with srw in #154. Re#152 - jeb - I do not think people are, or
wish to "bash" Arbornet, or the people there. Some of the actions
of Arbornet (at least the elected representatives of Arbornet) are
very difficult to understand as being rational in the context
of true community spirit and networking. Frankly, I get the 
impression that the Arbornet board says, in effect: "We were
here first, we know it all, and there is no need or room for
anyone else."  Some of the postings from the officals at Arbornet
are, well, strange.  I ask you again, how does the refusal to
enter dialogue with WIN in shared conferences creating a benefit
for the members of Arbornet? If the members are being "protected"
somehow, what are they being protected from? Perhaps it is nto
not the members who are being protected? {oops sorry jep you
are not "jeb" - no offense meant.]

response 158 of 220:

Jun 4 01:26 UTC 1995

Jep:  Don't leave with the impression that "the folks on Grex are bashing
  Arbornet."  Most of the people who have been doing the "Arbornet bashing"
  here are Arbornet members (note Dave and me for instance).  Leave it as
  "a lot of people are pissed off about Arbornet's behavior wrt to WIN"
  and you will find that it is not another reason for Arbornet to stay out
  of WIN.

I have been unable to find anything on Arbornet explaining why Arbornet
doesn't want to link the WIN conferences, except a statement by Craig
that said "win" was a user conference, not a system conference and thus
was not representative of Arbornet and thus could not be linked.  I've
never heard the distinction between "user" and "system" conferences before
and I don't understand any of the reasoning from that point either.
Probably I should go raise this issue on M-Net, but frankly, I think I
already know what response and effect it will achieve.

My suggestion, much though I love M-Net, write it off on this one.  Start
your own conference and get on with things.  The M-Net win conference is
not very active (why should it be?) and you aren't missing anything.

response 160 of 220:

Jun 4 15:52 UTC 1995

   I'm not really interested in trying to keep up on two conferences
on the same subject.  I've been thinking about this for a while now, 
and was hoping that Arbornet would come around.  Since it doesn't seem
likely, I find the prospect of using a conference on a system whose
leadership has decided not to really participate in the cause a little
bizarre.
   Therefore I think Grex should start its own WIN conference, with
the provision of letting any other system share it (however that might
come about) and bascially, forget about Arbornet until such time as
they decide to become willing full participants.

response 162 of 220:

Jun 5 03:19 UTC 1995

        As oneof the FWs of the M-Net WIN Confrence, I'm willing to
*try* cross-posting of materials between the conferences.  But I
also hope interested Grexers will participate in the M-Net Conference
too.

response 164 of 220:

Jun 5 04:28 UTC 1995

Dave, Steve, 
Is there some way to cross-reference the conferences by using
another system? The Internet abhors censorship - EMU might help
here.  

response 166 of 220:

Jun 5 06:36 UTC 1995

Start a WIN conference here on grex, which is a WIN participant.

response 168 of 220:

Jun 5 17:36 UTC 1995

I started an item on M-Net discussing this, and it may be possible to
form a link, but I don't think Grex should wait.  The response to that
item is promising but weird.  M-Net has several linked conferences, since
Yapp has built in support for that, and none of them has ever required
board approval in the past.  Does "remps" still exist?  Is this even
technically feasible?

response 170 of 220:

Jun 5 22:02 UTC 1995

Re remps (which stands for REMote PicoSpan):  I remember something
about it.  The sharing mechanism is email.  The remps program on one
system simply sweeps through the conference periodically, collects any
new local responses, and mails them to the remps program on the other
system, which enters them in that system's version of the conference.
I think remps may use the high-level Picospan user interface in
batch mode and not even have to know about the underlying file
structure of the conferences.  In any case, I don't think it would be a
huge job to get it working.

Remps was used 7 or 8 years ago to share some conferences between m-net
and Chicago's chinet.  Back then, mail used uucp as the transport
mechanism between systems, which is slow, and there was typically
several hours to a day or so lag time between a response being entered
and its showing up on the remote system.  In these days of internet
mail, it should be much faster.

Remps was developed by Jon Zeeff.  If someone can give me his current
email address, I'll be happy to inquire about its availability.

response 172 of 220:

Jun 6 03:32 UTC 1995

        Jon Zeeff's address is jon@branch.com.

        I recommended to Valerie a couple of weeks ago that she start the WIN
conference here so people here can discuss WIN, because the Arbornet board
did not seem interested in sharing a WIN conference with Grex or anyone
else.

        I didn't really think most people were more interested in bashing
Arbornet for it's lack of interest in WIN than in having WIN do something,
but most of the activity seemed to be along those lines.  It's time for
WIN to move on.

        I am not going to engage in bashing a Board of which I am part just
because they disagree with me on one thing.  If it seems possible to me to
bring Arbornet into WIN, and if there is good reason to do so, I'll work
toward that end.  Right now it's not possible.  I see no point in trying
to explain or discuss that; it's just a fact, and an associated fact is
that it isn't going to change very soon.  Under the circumstances, I think
it more appropriate for a WIN conference to begin somewhere else -- such
as here on Grex -- than to gripe about how non-WIN member Arbornet is not
going to share it's WIN conference among other systems.

        I think it's very weird for people to discuss Arbornet in a policy 
conference for some other system.  I'm the only Arbornet Board member who 
regularly reads this conference.  If you want to try to affect Arbornet's
decisions, it would make a lot more sense to do it in Arbornet's policy
conference, where you can reach Arbornet's decision makers.

        I'm here participating in this discussion, and will participate in
the WIN conference here, because I am interested in what WIN is going to
do, and how it will be run, and in making such suggestions as I can to
make it run better.  I'm an observer for Arbornet, but I am more than
that.  I'm a regular active user of Grex, too.  I was once a member, and 
will be again.  I also intend to be a member of HVCN at some point.  These
things are independent of my role in Arbornet.
        My activity with WIN is not independent of my role in Arbornet, not 
entirely, but I am not an official representative of Arbornet for WIN because 
we don't have one at this time.  My interest in WIN is because of my
interest in Arbornet.
        Regardless of my status as a Board member of Arbornet, I think I can 
help WIN, and I am willing to do so.  My loyalty and primary interest
belongs to Arbornet.  That will have to suffice as far as my personal status 
goes.

        Regardless of Arbornet's status with WIN, I think WIN can help
        Arbornet, 
and I think this benefit can be mutual.  I will derive such benefits from
WIN for Arbornet as I can.  I will pass on such benefits from Arbornet to
WIN as I can.  The benefits of Arbornet are not the Board's to pick and
choose as far as who gets them.  We're there for everyone, to gain from us
as they can.  It's the same with WIN, as I see it.  Or to put it much more
simply, I am not interested in feuds, I am not participating in any such,
and Arbornet will not embark in any while I am a Board member there.  We
may not have any official cooperation, but we don't have to fight.

response 174 of 220:

Jun 6 23:25 UTC 1995

        Some users on M-Net are pursuing sharing the WIN conference
regardless of the Board's lack of approval.  The M-Net conference 
committee, which administers creating and regulating the conferences 
there, is considering their proposal.
        Life is interesting in the bureaucracy of Arbornet, sometimes.  (I
tell people that "bureaucracy" doesn't always mean what they imagine, a
stifling, self-perpetuating mass of red tape and indecision.)  I'm waiting
to see what happens next, myself, and not expecting much.  The conference
committee reports to the president, and the president decided we shouldn't
share the WIN conference.
        Regardless of what happens, I thought people reading this item might
be interested in knowing what's going on.