|
Grex > Coop > #284: Grex Town Hall -- How do we move forward? - Fall, 2010 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 334 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 151 of 334:
| 
Nov 25 00:19 UTC 2010 |
No I object to the validation scheme based on what it is, not that you
came up with it. And re #150 I think limiting users to one login is
okay, who needs multiple logins here these days anyway?
The overriding point is that grex does not and should not be in any way
encouraging or promoting use of outside commercial services. Doing so
would just outsiders question grex's mission and whether grex is being
paid off by these commercial services to encourage its users to sign up
there in order to validate here.
|
richard
|
|
response 152 of 334:
|
Nov 25 00:30 UTC 2010 |
In fact I believe that Grex encouraging validating via a micro-payment
through PayPal is essentially promoting use of a for-profit service and
could be a violation of the rules for a 501(3)(c). This sort of thing
could threaten Grex's tax status.
|
mary
|
|
response 153 of 334:
|
Nov 25 00:49 UTC 2010 |
Oh, God, Richard. You better get right on the phone to The Red Cross,
Kiva and a host of other charitable non-profits and let them know about
this right away.
|
cross
|
|
response 154 of 334:
|
Nov 25 03:36 UTC 2010 |
resp:151 What if a user *wants* multiple logins? Why should we restrict
that? Have you *really* thought this through?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 155 of 334:
|
Nov 25 05:24 UTC 2010 |
Don't all online bbses, forums, etc "argue endlessly about [one or more
of] conservative vs liberal, republican vs democrat, atheism vs
religion, pro-choice vs pro-life, gun control, oil, wars, and all the
usual stuff"?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 156 of 334:
|
Nov 25 13:42 UTC 2010 |
I can not think of a single other forum I participate in that allows
political or religious arguments. So no, not all. But I'm sure many do.
|
cross
|
|
response 157 of 334:
|
Nov 25 13:44 UTC 2010 |
resp:155 That's my point. Grex is no longer unique; it's now a small fish
in a very, very big pond.
|
keesan
|
|
response 158 of 334:
|
Nov 25 15:10 UTC 2010 |
Last I looked at the Puppy Linux chat area two people were discussing
marijuana. Some linux forums have a 'general' area where people talk
about anything they like. SDF has a general forum.
|
kentn
|
|
response 159 of 334:
|
Nov 25 15:36 UTC 2010 |
If we can get the PayPal verification system working, would we also
credit their micropayment after we've assured ourselves the account
is okay? Any payment could be considered a donation and stated as
such several times during the verification process, if we cannot do a
credit. What is the smallest payment you can make via PayPal?
|
kentn
|
|
response 160 of 334:
|
Nov 25 17:04 UTC 2010 |
I see where PayPal offers micropayments and that might actually save
some fees as the rates are lower than if you send a small payment via
regular PayPal (the example I saw was that usually a $1 payment would
incur a 33c fee, but with micropayments the fee would be lower, 10c).
The problem with this is it requires a new PayPal account and is geared
more for merchants selling digital downloads. Plus, somebody in the
transaction (Grex or the user) loses those fees if you give money back
(and the credit transaction might incur a fee as well) unless PayPal
refunds the fees.
|
cross
|
|
response 161 of 334:
|
Nov 25 18:17 UTC 2010 |
Eh, I'd say ask them to donate either two or six dollars. Then you really
could make them members; if they let the membership lapse, that'd be their
decision.
|
kentn
|
|
response 162 of 334:
|
Nov 25 18:29 UTC 2010 |
Okay, then we should make it clear that using PayPal as a verification
method means making a donation for membership. That's one way to get
members :) I have a feeling that verification is a side benefit of
PayPal anyway, since you usually get there for the purpose of paying for
a membership.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 163 of 334:
|
Nov 26 13:46 UTC 2010 |
You know what, perhaps we should reconsider the whole paid membership.
Maybe being a verified person is all we should require to be a member.
If we did that, I think people would still donate to the organization.
In fact, some might feel more inclined to donate after receiving "free"
services (principle of reciprocity and all that).
|
cross
|
|
response 164 of 334:
|
Nov 26 15:40 UTC 2010 |
Hmm. That's interesting. I kind of like that....
|
veek
|
|
response 165 of 334:
|
Nov 26 18:05 UTC 2010 |
I was wondering, if someone wants to create a conference - what is the
procedure to do so? (I'm not planning such a thing, but if we have
newusers from the 'reverse engineering' community, they will need a
conference - in fact they may need multiple conferences.) Would that be
okay??
|
cross
|
|
response 166 of 334:
|
Nov 26 18:07 UTC 2010 |
Yeah, that's fine. I think they just request it from the conference admin.
|
kentn
|
|
response 167 of 334:
|
Nov 26 19:41 UTC 2010 |
One huge question is will we get enough donations to support the current
cost of running Grex and provide for system maintenance & replacement?
That holds true whether we have membership fees or not. The main issue,
as I see it, is not that we have dues for membership, as membership
essentially only gives you the right to vote and has not been tied to
user classes, as far as I know. Nor is membership expensive, so it's
not a matter of dollars ($6 will allow you to vote in the upcoming
election!).
Rather, it is that we need to "provide a system worth supporting" as
several people have said.
While making memberships free would certainly mean more members, would
they be involved in the governance of Grex? What is their stake in the
system?
Here are some things, in no particular order and not complete, that I
see we need to do beyond the current level of support we give Grex:
We need to find services to offer that agree with Grex's mission and
meet people's "worth supporting" criterion (and not worry so much if
we can compete with large commercial organizations).
We need to be responsive to users' and members' issues and fix the
"broken windows" of the system.
We need to keep our current services up to date and working as
expected.
We need to disseminate accurate and helpful information about our
system.
We need to add and maintain new services that are useful to users.
We need to publicize our existence and services and be able to
provide good service when people come here, including getting an
account to even try out the system.
We need to actively recruit new members.
We need to appreciate the members we currently have.
We need to actively encourage current members to continue their
memberships.
We need to encourage new volunteers to help.
We need to mentor and encourage new staff and ensure that we will
have staff members available to maintain the system.
We need to plan for Grex's future.
We do some of these things currently, just not enough and not fast
enough. Some of these things we don't do at all.
These are not merely a matter of the Board voting to do things. Grex
needs the time and effort of knowledgeable, motivated people to do the
work of making these changes.
We need users to be involved and willing to govern the system by
becoming members (whatever that cost). That includes coming up with
good ideas and participating in elections and member votes, things that
generally take a small amount of effort and investment--but potentially
have a big impact.
I see some of this occurring, which is a positive sign. But we need
still more involvement and effort.
What are you willing to do to help?
If you currently do not support Grex with a donation & membership, what
would make Grex "worth supporting" to you? If we made those changes, is
that really enough for you to make that donation, get a membership and
be involved in the governance of Grex? If not, why not?
If you are currently a member (thank you very much!) what will keep you
supporting Grex?
|
remmers
|
|
response 168 of 334:
|
Nov 26 19:56 UTC 2010 |
Re resp:165, resp:166 - It's been a long time since anyone requested a
new conference, so I think the procedure has kind of been forgotten.
The policy has always been that if you want a new conference you ask for
it in Coop, allow a few days for user input into the proposal, and if
you still want it after that, you get it (regardless whether people
thought it was a good idea or not). In earlier Coops there was a new
conference proposals item for that purpose, but I can't seem to find one
in the current edition - but see item:coop9,18 for an example conference
proposal item.
New conference proposals are pretty rare nowadays. Maybe the waiting
period no longer serves a useful purpose.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 169 of 334:
|
Nov 26 20:38 UTC 2010 |
I don't see a problem with that procedure. I somewhat think there should
be a procedure for getting rid of some conferences though.
|
cross
|
|
response 170 of 334:
|
Nov 26 20:56 UTC 2010 |
I think we should at least restart some of the older and cruftier conferences.
For instance, the "micros" conference; really, when was the last time someone
called a desktop computer a "microcomputer"? Restarting the systems (nee
jellyware) conference resulted in a flurry of new activity for a few months,
though that's tappered off now; I sort of look at doing some selective
conference pruning as a way of repairing some of the more glaringly broken
windows on Grex.
resp:167 I think the thing that's likely to keep me interested is if Grex
remains an interesting place technically. While the technology has gotten
kind of boring in the last few years, I think the idea of it remains
sufficiently compelling that I stick around to poke at things and see where
it can be taken. The place definitely needs a facelift.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 171 of 334:
|
Nov 26 21:02 UTC 2010 |
There are bbses, forums and mailing lists for all kinds of obsolete
technology. I belong to one for pendulum clocks - improving their timekeeping
is its major thrust (they use atomic clocks to measure how well they are
doing). Maybe have a conference for obsolete computers?
|
cross
|
|
response 172 of 334:
|
Nov 26 21:05 UTC 2010 |
Sure. But don't make that the main source for information about modern PCs.
|
veek
|
|
response 173 of 334:
|
Nov 29 13:48 UTC 2010 |
hmm.. i just checked and Arbornet has no restricted shell. It's pretty
much took a few seconds to get an account. (and there was very little
text to read too)
|
cross
|
|
response 174 of 334:
|
Nov 29 15:01 UTC 2010 |
For whatever reason, they don't seem to have the same problems we do
with people attacking the server as soon as they get an account. I
don't know quite why that is, but I suspect that some of it is that
it's just easier to push people's buttons on Grex, and the
personalities that have been most disruptive over the past few years
seem to get a kick out of doing that.
|
veek
|
|
response 175 of 334:
|
Nov 29 15:44 UTC 2010 |
they have a slow fuse but when it gets lit they tend to annihilate -
like with taking chad to court.. I bet they would have. we need more of
that and less of validate is what i'm thinking - less pussyfooting
around and more of aggressive action once it crosses a certain point.
(also it helps that tonster's got m-net is in his backyard or
somethin.. so easy to fix) we really need to nuke validate BUT then we
need someone bullheaded enough that if there's trouble.. lawyers.. mm..
what we need is someone with a JD..
i read that there are lawyers that sort off dog patients footsteps
(accident victims).. i was seriously wondering.. is that true? is it
likely that if i gooled someone and approcached them, they'd be willing
to help for free? what's the probability of it working out (roughly)
|