|
Grex > Coop8 > #83: "All ports are busy" vs. A countdown-- which is better? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 196 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 150 of 196:
| 
Jul 21 14:29 UTC 1996 |
Don't worry, mdw, as a Board member I refuse to authorize any money
to pay you for the queue program. I'm a decent guy. >8)
|
ajax
|
|
response 151 of 196:
|
Jul 21 15:31 UTC 1996 |
Marcus, while the $1 idea is inane, its purpose wasn't directed at you.
Someone gave kerouac the idea that the board only votes on money-related
issues, so by making the queue change money-related, then the board could
vote on it. Don't worry, nobody will take the idea seriously (I think).
|
srw
|
|
response 152 of 196:
|
Jul 21 16:40 UTC 1996 |
Some people have argued that the board and staff should be more distinct.
I think it really doesn't matter whether there is high or low overlap. The
functions are distinct, and the individuals I know (including myself) who are
both recognize those distinctions and act accordingly.
For example, at staff meetings, with a board quorum present, I have heard
said "We should bring this question to the board." I think the current system
works, and is not broken. I am mystified by Kerouac's urges to fix it.
Similarly, we try and often succeed at quashing technical digressions at board
meetings. (We are not perfect, and have to improve ourselves at this.)
The board receives a technical report from the staff at every board meeting.
In that report are often notification of planned changes to the system. The
board may have a lot of techies on it, but when they are acting as board
members, it is not their job to make technical decisions. The board accepts
the staff's recommendations on technical questions. The board appoints staff
people so as to ensure that it is getting the best technical advice.
The board serves the members, and serves at the pleasure of the members. If
the members really do believe that the degree of overlap between board and
staff should be less, then they should elect less technical people to the
board. The board will not appoint non-techies to the staff, for obvious
reasons.
So, to the point of the telnet queue, the board trusts the staff to make
technical changes to the system. The board does not usually vote on such
questions. If members are concerned that the board allows too much leeway to
the staff, they should vote in new directors who also believe that.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 153 of 196:
|
Jul 21 18:07 UTC 1996 |
Well the board should trust the staff considering they are basically
the same people. Maybe this is an indication that board and staff
should be separate. Because even when there are legitimate needs for
board action, since staff controls the board, there is very little need
as long a staff reaches concensus amongst themselves. Right now, as
things stand, we may as well not have a board, because it and staff
are the same thing.
There is a reason the President of the U.S. is not allowed to also be
a member of congress at the same time. It is called conflict of
interest. You cant be objective in your job of overseeing another
group when you are part of that group.
Also, face it, staff has a distinct advantage running against regular
users for board seats because they are visibly out there involved in
system issues. That doesnt mean that other users dont care enough to
be on the board, but they end up lacking the name recognition.
So I think its only fair that the bylaws be changed so that staff can only
make up three of the seven board slots, and that the three slots are
designated "staff slots" so that staff always has that presence on the board.
If a stafer wants to run for a non-staf board slot, they can always
resign from staff. There really is aconflict of interest here and it
makes it such that having a board is almost pointless at the moment.
|
srw
|
|
response 154 of 196:
|
Jul 21 18:47 UTC 1996 |
Richard, the board and the staff are different. Even if they are populated
by the same people, there is a point in distinguishing them.
The board is elected by the members. You cannot do away with the board
without disenfranchising the members. The members have what they want
right now. They elected this mostly-techy board. You are the only person
complaining about it.
If you are a member and would like to offer a bylaw change proposal,
then go for it.
|
scg
|
|
response 155 of 196:
|
Jul 21 18:52 UTC 1996 |
<scg gags>
Richard, I really don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is.
Typically, paid staff members of an organization can not be on the
organization's board, since they would then be controlling their own
sallaries. That is a conflict of interest. OTOH, in our local school board
elections for example, the candidates tend to make a rather big deal of their
involvement with various volunteer activities in the schools, and being
elected does not mean that people have to stop volunteering.
So, Richard, you would hae a point if Grex had a paid staff. If Grex had a
paid staff, it would be a very bad idea for us to have any of our paid
staffers on the board, since there would be a rather clear conflict of
interest there. But Grex does not have a paid staff; all we have are a bunch
of volunteers.
If our members really felt that people who do volunteer work for Grex should
not be allowed on the board, I'm sure they would not have elected us. If our
members really felt that the board was making the wrong decisions, or not
making decisions when they should, any member could call a member vote on any
issue they had a problem with. Given that nobody has done this, I can only
conclude that the membership is pretty happy with what the board and staff
are doing.
|
mdw
|
|
response 156 of 196:
|
Jul 21 19:17 UTC 1996 |
Of 12000 users of grex, only 94 care enough to become voting members of
the system. Of that fraction, only 50 care enough about exercising
their vote to participate in coop (presumably, the other 44 members are
satisfied with the running of the system, & are members primarily to
support the system, and perhaps secondarily to vote if things went
drastically wrong.) An additional 79 users also participate actively in
coop, but are either unable or unwilling to support grex at present.
These numbers do not suggest a large scale of dissatisfaction with the
current system. Therefore, the first rule of meddling applies: if it
ain't broke, don't fix it.
The reason checks and balances are important in a gov't is there aren't
any external corrective agents. If some process in a gov't runs amok,
there is no simple remedy or ready alternative. In the absence of
these, the only choices are war, revolution, or misery. It should also
be noted that most gov'ts are large & rich enough to afford very complex
and elaborate systems, with a high degree of specialization.
Grex, on the other hand, is only just another small fish in a large
market of cybernetic opportunity. There are many alternatives out there
already, and if no alternative suits, the entry costs associated with
starting a new system are not prohibitive. Therefore, the external
corrective agents are sufficient and tolerable. Indeed, they provide a
very natural internal check and balance mechanism - systems that are
losing a lot of users through some internal fault have a strong
incentive to make corrections. Grex, being just a small fish, also
cannot afford the high degree of complexity that large organizations
such as the federal government exhibit.
|
janc
|
|
response 157 of 196:
|
Jul 21 23:10 UTC 1996 |
Richard, you keep trying to apply standard organizational thinking to Grex.
Because of this, nothing you have to say about how the Grex organization
should operate is useful to us.
I've been involved with three different "virtual democracies" -- Grex,
Arbornet, and The River. Two of the three tried to do things they way you
seem to think would work (clear separation of staff and board, board asserting
clear control over staff, clear policies for everything). Both of them were
pretty terrible experiences. Board members resigned regularly in frustration.
Staff simply left, leaving the system with no techical talent to draw on.
Users found the board unresponsive and there relationships with the board grew
increasingly hostile. If seen most of your suggestions taken, and I've seen
them fail miserably.
I'm not sure exactly what the Grex formula is, but I know that it works better
than anything I've ever been a part of, and I've been a part of a lot of
systems.
Recently I was reading some Marx (Karl, that is). He claims that one of the
fundamental failings of capitalist systems is that while working is a
fundamental good, something everyone needs to be happy, in capitalism the
worker works for someone elses ends, losing control of his own labor, and
becoming alienated from the system as a whole. I'm not about to claim Marx
as my prophet, but what Grex is attempting to do obviously has nothing to
do with capitalism, so maybe non-capitalist thinking makes more sense when
you are thinking about Grex.
So in a non-capitalist system, the workers should be in control of their own
work, thus making them more satisfied with the system and their place in it.
So on Grex the basic idea is that everyone works as much as they like (or as
little as they like) at things they themselves want to do. Two catches to
this are obvious: (1) we need to be sure everything necessary gets done, and
(2) we want to be responsive to the general will, not just to the productive
few.
But these problems aren't as bad as you good capitalists might think. None
of the workers are getting paid with anything except appreciation. So if a
job is not getting done, the appreciation for someone doing that job goes up,
so effectively a higher pay is offered. And naturally doing something that
is popular with the users (like my adding :ignore to party) gets well paid
with lots of appreciation, so there are strong incentives for the workers to
respond to the general will.
It's not a perfect system, but in an environment where money does not exist,
it isn't half bad.
The board also has a job to do. It's job is NOT to give marching order to
all the other volunteers for the system. It's job is to collect opinion and
form key decisions about the future of Grex. It's great that it interacts
closely with system's other volunteers. I'm not sure exactly how to
characterize what it does, but it isn't about issueing edicts to the staff
and users.
I think we have a very able and effective system here, and we should be
thinking about continuing to make it work from day to day. All plans to
replace it with some more traditional organization are inappropriate and
irrelevant. Richard would do better listening more, and noticing how many
things do work pretty well, rather than simply rejecting the way things are
done because it isn't what he is used to.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 158 of 196:
|
Jul 22 01:25 UTC 1996 |
Goodness gracious, my oh my! The issues enlarge! I do not want, in any
sense, to see Grex suffer the entropy of Arbornet, or any other system with
and excess weight of rules and regulations. I would not be an olympic class
user of Coop if I thought any differenet <adbarr thinks he should be awarded
a discount on a GrexMug> but I do think there should be and understanding
on the part of Staff that are members of the board that they wear two hats.
Perhaps it should be a requirement that all Staff serve on the board and the
bylaws reflect that fact? I agree Grex is not broken. I also know that
people change, volunteers leave, and new people appear. Marcus should be
paid at least $2.00, by the way. Why so skimpy?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 159 of 196:
|
Jul 22 03:21 UTC 1996 |
(I'll sell you a Grex Mug for $6, Arnold.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 160 of 196:
|
Jul 22 05:57 UTC 1996 |
re #144 - domination from another POV- 9 of the top 20 are roots
6 of the top 20 are not baff
19 of the top 20 ARE ENGAGED in SOME
"official" capacity on Grex.
can we re-think "domination?"
|
tsty
|
|
response 161 of 196:
|
Jul 22 06:03 UTC 1996 |
oops ... 18 of 20 are engaged in some "official" capacity on grex. the other
is borg on a hand-in-glove system.
so .... the response ratio is 409 to 4390. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
scg
|
|
response 162 of 196:
|
Jul 22 06:12 UTC 1996 |
TS, I'd be interested in hearing what "official" capacity all but two of
kerouac, rcurl, adbarr, brighn, tsty, carson, davel, and chelsea are currently
"engaged in" as relates to Grex. Were you calling FWing an official capacity,
or what? Otherwise, I think your 18 of the top 20 figure is wrong. They're
certainly all active users of Grex, and of Coop and other conferences, but
that's a given considerin ghow the statistics were gathered.
That aside, it needs pointing out that those people are all individuals, who
generally do not always agree, and that much of the discussion from other
people has been in responding to the rediculous things tha tkerouac argues
for.
|
jenna
|
|
response 163 of 196:
|
Jul 22 06:57 UTC 1996 |
<hum... I need to post more>
|
kerouac
|
|
response 164 of 196:
|
Jul 22 16:20 UTC 1996 |
re: adbarr's last post...A while back, I actually proposed that all staff
members be required to serve on the board, and that the board be enlarged
proportionaly. It was another idea that wasnt very popular though I
still think it makes sense. Staff members are de-facto board members in
the current setup. Only thing is that there are too many people (11)
on staff, and that would make the board huge. If we had say five
staffers and a board size of eleven it would makes sense.
On the other hand, I dont want this to end up being like m-net where
all the tech folks left because the board took their jobs too seriously.
I dont know what the solution is, but it bears thinking that maybe things
are working well on grex because there havent been any personal conflicts
or difficult problems. Those are just a fact of nature, and when they do
happen, it might be safer to have a strong set-up to fall back upon.
|
janc
|
|
response 165 of 196:
|
Jul 22 16:36 UTC 1996 |
You don't know what the solution is? I don't even know what the problem is!
What problem are you trying to solve? Basic law of good government -- always
identify a problem before you identify a solution.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 166 of 196:
|
Jul 22 16:43 UTC 1996 |
TS? The reason so many of the most frequent posters in co-op are involved
in some official capacity on Grex is that Grex is cooperatively run, so
anybody who sticks around for long enough to become a most frequent poster
in co-op is quite likely indeed to also find themself doing other useful
things for the system, in some official capacity or another.
|
mdw
|
|
response 167 of 196:
|
Jul 22 17:02 UTC 1996 |
There most certainly *have* been personal problems, and there certainly
have been difficult "problems" of many other sorts. We've been
fortunate in that we've mostly been able to resolve personal problems
privately - which is, after all, where such problems belong. You
already know about many of the other difficult "problems"; finding a
place for grex to live, paying bills, keeping the software happy, and
all that.
|
davel
|
|
response 168 of 196:
|
Jul 22 18:56 UTC 1996 |
I thought I'd gather a slightly different sampling of data from what Valerie
presented in #144. Besides being more recent (hence the numbers have
changed), I counted the number of lines & number of words in responses.
(Following Valerie's lead, I've left the UID with the login. I've added
headings for clarity.)
rank resp UID & login lines words
------ ---- ---------------- ----- -----
1: 412 ,U9304,kerouac 4712 50758
2: 364 ,U112,popcorn 2051 20570
3: 354 ,U18753,adbarr 1338 15137
4: 354 ,U1827,rcurl 2237 22805
5: 326 ,U7818,brighn 2478 24518
6: 313 ,U1515,robh 1339 11431
7: 309 ,U28471,scott 1562 14457
8: 306 ,U2386,janc 2717 27620
9: 304 ,U110,steve 3417 31008
10: 290 ,U1981,srw 3593 32602
11: 287 ,U1577,tsty 2371 20092
12: 259 ,U1831,scg 1538 17716
13: 226 ,U5106,ajax 1794 17726
14: 225 ,U2660,carson 1068 9016
15: 188 ,U121,remmers 1177 10406
16: 172 ,U1681,davel 797 8678
17: 155 ,U111,chelsea 1260 10983
18: 146 ,U13455,nephi 1767 14541
19: 128 ,U500,gregc 1501 14720
20: 99 ,U107,mdw 1418 14878
21: 98 ,U60,cfadm 212 459
(If anyone wants to play with this, BTW, the program I used is
/home/davel/dlcoopcount.nawk
To run it, you can do
nawk -f /home/davel/dlcoopcount.nawk /bbs/coop8/_* | tee someoutputfile
(I then used an editor to add the headings & cut off all but the
highest-ranking lines.))
|
robh
|
|
response 169 of 196:
|
Jul 22 19:06 UTC 1996 |
Wow, I think I have the lowest words-to-response ratio on the list...
|
chelsea
|
|
response 170 of 196:
|
Jul 22 19:57 UTC 1996 |
So, what does it all mean?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 171 of 196:
|
Jul 22 21:17 UTC 1996 |
it means that davel and popcorn have too much free time on
their hands...and that I type long messages *shrug*
|
davel
|
|
response 172 of 196:
|
Jul 22 21:42 UTC 1996 |
It means that some people talk more than others ... which we already knew.
I indicated I thought it was useless, didn't I?
But I found it interesting, though unsurprising, that kerouac has more than 50%
more words posted here than any other one person.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 173 of 196:
|
Jul 23 07:01 UTC 1996 |
The area that the current board does not particularly address is the one
I have raised questions about a number of times - the purposes of Grex
as stated in the Articles of Corporation. Probably the main reason that
these get little attention is related to the dominance of staff on the
board. Staff are interested in running the system - doing staff things -
and this is a perspective held by all the staff members of the board,
and I would also observe, held by the non-staff members. This situation
is not unexpected, as it is apparent that the interest of most of the
active members is also with the operation of the system, not with matters
of purpose. I don't foresee this slant among board, staff and members
changing much until all the hardware and software problems are "solved",
or until Grex gets big enough that it cannot be run solely by volunteers.
Once an organization starts to hire staff - technical or administrative -
the issue of "mission" arises, as people with jobs like to feel they
have larger purposes than the immediate problems. Hence, I concur with
most of the expressions of current satisfaction with how Grex works, since
there is no obvious alternative that would work better.
|
jenna
|
|
response 174 of 196:
|
Jul 23 19:43 UTC 1996 |
it means that kerouac typing in about twice as many lines/words
as popcorn for their one spot discrepancy on the list ;}
|