response 16 of 43:

Feb 14 00:50 UTC 2013

You're welcome.

response 18 of 43:

Feb 15 04:03 UTC 2013

The members are supposed to talk to one another about the governance of the
Corporation.  If they aren't communicating here, where are they
communicating?  Those folks asking for validation or verification are going
to communicate with the other members how?  And where?  And, most
importantly, WHY?  How are they to even know that they now have membership in
the Corporation, or what that membership means?  If you want to influence the
governance of Cyberspace Communications, Inc, this is where you have to act.

We had five board members, only one in Ann Arbor.  Somehow, the other four
never managed to meet.  Yup, it's a failure of the local board members.

NB.  We still only have one local board member: tsty.  Everyone else lives
elsewhere.  Kent is the closest, but he has to travel to meet in Ann Arbor.

response 20 of 43:

Feb 15 15:43 UTC 2013

Run its course, maybe. But it's had a good long run. And if you'd enjoyed it 
for as many years as I have... Well, hardly a failure.

response 22 of 43:

Feb 15 20:49 UTC 2013

I'd like to see a newer, web-based forum if we can get one.  We can keep
the old BBS running for those who like that sort of thing (in line with
our previous discussions of running text-based apps in parallel with
web-based or GUI).  But more web-based services would help in terms of
getting us onto more devices including tablets, possibly.  Perhaps a
forum and blogging might go hand in hand if the application supports
both.

I'm within 30-40 miles and so is TS.  I don't think ryan, glitch, and
ball are, though.

response 24 of 43:

Feb 16 15:26 UTC 2013

It's an old interface.  Time to try something newer.

response 26 of 43:

Feb 18 02:23 UTC 2013

Yes, and if you paid any attention to the Board's minutes
you'd know we know already and have been trying to get it
fixed.  

response 28 of 43:

Feb 18 02:26 UTC 2013

re resp:26: Kent, does everyone who proposes a change to the by-laws
have to read all of the minutes for every meeting to see if such things
were mentioned, or is that just for me?

response 30 of 43:

Feb 18 20:01 UTC 2013

resp:23 You don't see the web site bringing in new users because
your definition of the "Grex on the web" seems to be, "backtalk"
and your definition of user seems to be, "someone who uses the BBS."

I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that new users are
coming to Grex regularly, but they are almost uniformly NOT interested
in the BBS.  Why would they be?  What does the BBS possibly offer
that they would be interested in?  Do you really think that a
generation raised on the Internet is going to find anything on
Grex's 1980's era "BBS" that they couldn't find more easily, more
completely, more accurately, etc, elsewhere?  Even the "BBS" monicker
is outdated.  I mean, we're talking about a program from the early
1980s, and a web interface that hasn't changed fundamentally since
the late 1990s, when "web standards" were a distance fantasy and
HTML 3.2 and Netscape Navigator were cool.

It seems to me that there are two choices here: either force these
new users to play by Grex's existing rules, which clearly isn't
going to happen, and are only cared about by a handful of old timers
anyway.  Or change Grex's rules to accommodate the new users, who
are far greater in numbers and actually interested in some of the
things we have to offer.

It further strikes me that there's a group of folks who absolutely
cannot stand to see Grex change, and would rather shut it down than
let it evolve.  Personally, I think that's silly and selfish.  It's
like someone saying that, because the kids don't like the swings
anymore and prefer the sea-saws, we should shut down the playground
because anyone who doesn't like the swings isn't contributing.  The
swings are where all the cool kids hung out and decided who runs
the playground.  If you aren't into the swings, you clearly aren't
a cool kid and don't deserve to play in our playground.

Grex started out as a small, regional BBS and despite a few years
of rapid growth in use, stayed that way for far too long; THAT is
why it is stagnating now.  That and this imperative to retain the
BBS as the central focus of the system, despite limited use and
relevance to a new generations of users; I'm kind of shocked that
no one has mentioned 'party'.  But again, what would a generation
raised on IRC and AOL Instant Messanger and gTalk find compelling
in THAT interface?  But some are suggesting that the solution to
this is to ... do what, exactly?  Push the BBS on people because
if they aren't posting there, then they're not contributing?

Grex's founders were not the founding fathers of the United States,
and the bylaws are not the Constitution.  Why should we continue
to be constrained by the vision of a group of folks who sat around
pot luck dinners in the late 80s and early 90s -- before the Internet
explosion; before the World Wide Web -- and wrote out how they
thought out a computer conferencing system should be run?  They did
a fine job, but times have changed.

response 32 of 43:

Feb 18 22:23 UTC 2013

re resp:29: I don't know how to distinguish between "verified" and
"validated" users.

This isn't worth it to me if I have to drag and fight through it against
Kent.  You win this one, Kent.  I give up.  You have successfully
repelled a change.

I had thought Dan wanted to move away from the pay-to-vote model, and I
could see that as a good thing.  I now perceive that Dan wants something
else entirely.  I don't know what it is, with regard to voting
privileges, anyway.  I am not sure he knows, but it surely isn't what I
thought.

response 34 of 43:

Feb 19 12:30 UTC 2013

Re 32: The issue, John, is that validated users (group=people) are
roughly 1000 people on the system, many of how got their accounts and
never came back.  They aren't likely to participate.

Verified users, of which there are 104 users currently (group=verified)
at least wanted to be here enough to either pay for membership or
provide an ID to use the system.  So, from that perspective, are more
likely to want to participate.

If you want to go forward with your proposal, feel free. But I wasn't
sure if you knew the difference between the two user categories and what
that means to a proposal such as you are making.  If you are, then carry
on.  But I would not support making "validated" users members.  I would
at least be willing to discuss making "verified" users members (since
as Dan points out, we verify members, anyway).

response 36 of 43:

Feb 23 15:29 UTC 2013

I've been catching up on this discussion. I'm opposed to the proposal to
let anyone who's validated have a vote and have some doubts about the "a
person is a member forever after becoming a member once" concept, but I
do agree that Grex should take a hard look at its membership model. I'll
enter my ideas in a new item.

response 38 of 43:

Feb 24 00:08 UTC 2013

Sorry, I meant 10% of the membership; my bad.

The advantage of not expiring memberships is that it makes them easier to keep
track of: membership monotonically increases, and the members list is simply
appended to.  Hey, right now, no one is doing it as far as I can tell.  May
as well make it as dead simple as possible.

Saying that 'coop is the stockholders' meeting of Cyberspace Communications'
is only true because an existing group of people want it to be true.  They
could change their minds and say, 'A mailing list is the stockholders' meeting
of Cyberspace Communications.'  Why should that be a problem?

response 40 of 43:

Feb 24 02:08 UTC 2013

I don't think even that is true.  We had an election sometime back where the
board just kind of declared that pretty much all votes were going to count,
because there were no records of who was actually a member at that time.  So
there is some precedence for doing such things.